Law schools have become addicted to federal educational loan money. Under current law, schools can charge whatever they want for tuition, and the federal government will loan 100% of that amount, plus 100% of estimated living expenses, to any admitted student who isn't in default on an educational loan, no questions asked. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in economics (something an increasing number of law professors actually have, not that it seems to be doing any good in regard to this particular subject) to realize this is a recipe for reckless financial behavior on the part of everyone -- students, schools, and the government -- involved in these transactions.
These are very high-interest loans that aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy, which means that the people who are borrowing the money will be doing severe damage to their financial futures if they aren't able to repay the loans in a timely manner. Despite the best efforts of legal academia to hide the fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that an actual majority of recent law school graduates and current students are or will soon find themselves in that precise position.
A crucial goal of the push for greater law school transparency is to make the specifics of this situation as clear as possible to three groups of people: prospective law students and their families, people working inside law schools, and government officials. The need to educate the first group is obvious: what's not as immediately obvious is that it's just as important to raise the consciousness of the people who draw their paychecks from law schools, and the people who make the laws that keep the ever-increasing supply of taxpayer-funded tuition money flowing.
People inside law schools need to be confronted with the real numbers for two reasons: First, some will feel moral qualms about making a living by selling a service which is leaving the majority of the people to whom they're selling it worse off than they were before. Second, even those who don't feel such qualms will, if they are prudently self-interested, recognize that they're making their living off what in the long term is an unsustainable business model, and that it's in their interest to change that model before it's changed for them.
Government officials need to see the real numbers so they can reform a system that at present does immense damage to borrowers and then leaves taxpayers holding the bag.
How should the federal educational loan system be reformed? This is a complicated question, which of course applies to all of higher education. Here I'm merely suggesting what might make sense for law school loans, which by themselves represent a several-billion dollar a year "investment" on the part of law students and, ultimately, taxpayers.
The most obvious initial reform would involve the federal government refusing to allow law schools to stick the government with the bill for whatever amount of tuition the schools decide to charge. For example, the government could limit federal educational loans for law school tuition to $15,000 per year (this figure represents the average cost of private law school tuition, in current dollars, 25 years ago. Public law school tuition averaged a quarter of that). Schools that wanted to charge more tuition than that would be free to do so, but students would either have to come up with the money themselves, or borrow it from private lenders (these loans would be dischargeable in bankruptcy), or be granted the difference by the school in the form of scholarships.
Such a reform would only be a first step. The way higher education is paid for in this country is in need of a complete overhaul, and law schools are only a small part of the picture. But if you're reading this blog it's probably because it's the part of the picture you happen to be in. Stopping the absurd practice of requiring taxpayers to pay literally whatever law schools decide they want to charge for law degrees is a good place to start.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Cutting off the addicts
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
This blog post cuts to the core of what continues to affect so many people. It is high time to throw these "addicts" into the cold shower of reality and make them suffer withdrawal cold turkey. Let them suffer economically---just as so many have suffered in their wake.ReplyDelete
This statement needs clarification:ReplyDelete
"The most obvious initial reform would involve the federal government refusing to allow law schools to stick the government with the bill for whatever amount of tuition the schools decide to charge. For example, the government could limit federal educational loans for law school tuition to $15,000 per year (this figure represents the average cost of private law school tuition, in current dollars, 25 years ago. Public law school tuition averaged a quarter of that)."
Even for say, Harvard Law School?
7:48 - Yes, even for Harvard. Students at Harvard would likely be able to obtain private loans since a Harvard law degree is (probably) still a good investment. But students at lesser schools that currently charge as much as Harvard will not be able to obtain private loans, which will force those schools to reduce tuition. It probably makes sense that Harvard should charge a lot more tuition than, say, Syracuse.ReplyDelete
To 7:48: Unless I seriously misremember (which is possible), when I graduated from Yale Law School in the early 1990s, tuition was ~$29,000 per year. In today's dollars, that comes to just over $45,000.ReplyDelete
But Harvard, Yale, Stanford and the eleven or so other "top ten" schools aren't the problem. Their grads generally aren't going to struggle to find jobs. And for those who want to do public interest work there are (at least at YLS) pretty reasonable loan forgiveness programs.
@ 7:48: making exceptions for any school would be counter productive. People that go to Harvard won't have hard getting private loans unlike people that go to NYLS. Which really is the goal of the whole movement: the only law school around should be the ones that give their graduates a real shot at employment and ability to repay their loans within 10 years. Law schools that can't provide such value for their students should be driven out of business.ReplyDelete
Harvard is definitely not the problem, so why force their students to have to go to the grubby private student loan market?ReplyDelete
7:57: You do misremember. Tuition at Yale in the early 1990s was around $18,000 per year, i.e a little under $30,000 in present dollars.ReplyDelete
On a more general note - what is the name of the malady that affects law professors and other regulators, where - rather than create a tightly focused new regulation that affects only the problem - they decide to make an unnecessarily broad and overarching regulation that affects innocent actors who had nothing to do with the problem?ReplyDelete
This is a serious, very serious problem in all of the law. Is there a word for it? There has to be.
8:02: The "grubby" private law school loan market features *dischargeable* loans, which for Harvard students would probably feature lower interest rates than current federal loans.ReplyDelete
Barack Obama was a dirt poor ghetto community activist when he went to Columbia and Harvard Law School. Nothing about his resume told a bank that he would ever pay education loans back. In fact, he never made any real money until he published his book. He only worked a year in biglaw before running away in disgust.
In other words, Barack Obama could not get private loans under your proposal. Who are you tell someone bright enough to get into Harvard Law School, and to become POTUS, where he can get educational loans?
8:09: First, Barack Obama wasn't "dirt poor." Second, even if he was, private lenders aren't going to hesitate to fill whatever gap exists between $15K a year and whatever HLS decides to charge for tuition. Third, even if the second point wasn't true I'm pretty sure HLS could dig around under the seat cushions and come up with some grant money for the mostly hypothetical Barack Obamas of this world.ReplyDelete
8:03 (7:57 here) -- I don't think so. That may have been the tuition in the college, but the law school was substantially higher. I graduated with $100,000 of law school debt (and I did not live the high life as a student).ReplyDelete
It would make sense for a bank to extend credit to any key who got into HLS, including Barack Obama. Whatever his background, HLS is essentially vouching for him, which would be good enough for anybody.ReplyDelete
There's a flaw in your argument. He got into Harvard law, that should be enough to tell a bank he could probably have the chance to pay his loans back. In fact, if he got the chance to work in biglaw, that shows it even more. The fact that he chose to leave it of his own volition shows nothing about his ability to pay. If I get my JD and then become a farmhand after turning down biglaw, that's my own choice. What's going on are a significant portion of students aren't at least getting the chance to walk away, or even say hello, to big law, or even law at all.
LawProf and others aren't trying to stop worthy people from getting their education. What they're trying to do is stop people from getting into bad deals.
This shouldn't be a massive blank check issued by the lender with no due diligence done.
Lawprof, what is your source for historical tuition numbers? I'm just curious because I'd like to compare what is published about my own school with my own experience.ReplyDelete
"8:09: First, Barack Obama wasn't "dirt poor."ReplyDelete
You should read his book LawProf. He was a dirt poor community activist driving a beat up car. He was poor as people in the OWS protests.
I don't really think 8:09 makes that argument honestly. That is propaganda to defend the status quo; it will repeated over and over no matter how many times it is shot down.ReplyDelete
"It would make sense for a bank to extend credit to any key who got into HLS, including Barack Obama. Whatever his background, HLS is essentially vouching for him, which would be good enough for anybody."ReplyDelete
This is why you would be a terrible loan officer, because by no means do all HLS grads make enough to pay back $200,000. See e.g. Elie Mystal, or dozens of people I know.
"I'm pretty sure HLS could dig around under the seat cushions and come up with some grant money for the mostly hypothetical Barack Obamas of this world."ReplyDelete
They could, but they don't. Per capita, Harvard Law students borrow as much as those from a TTT. I'll fish out the link if you want.
If I remember correctly, Mystal left a high paying job and entered a field that does not pay much.ReplyDelete
8:28, anybody admitted to Harvard College who comes from a family that makes less than $50K a year goes for free (that a total of three per cent of Harvard undergrads fall into this category should tell you something about this nonsense about "dirt poor ghetto kids" not being able to go to HLS because they have no money).ReplyDelete
8:22: I get numbers for historical tuition from lots of different sources. HLS was charging $15,500 per year in tuition and fees in 1990. YLS was charging $21K in tuition in fees in 1995.
Sure, but that just means Harvard will have to drop their price to something easier for. Anks to take a risk with. The reason the cost is 200K is because the lender faces no risk.ReplyDelete
Amazing how many people "choose" to leave biglaw, and no one is asked to leave.ReplyDelete
But again, if I could get one thing out of this discussion I would really appreciate it. What is the word used to describe law professors, 1Ls and regulators who - rather than craft tightly focused solutions that address only the problem - craft needlessly overbroad regulations that impact the lives of innocent actors?
If I had a nickle every time I saw such problematic solutions in the law . . .
Sorry, hard to comment typing on my phone. Easier for banks.ReplyDelete
"anybody admitted to Harvard College who comes from a family that makes less than $50K a year goes for free"ReplyDelete
Can you link the document listing this program? Because it seems impossible. For one thing, it would be very easy to game. For example, you don't have any right to see what the family of a grown adult makes. Anyone could claim to be estranged from their family and get this reward. For another thing, what about the 40 year old non-trad going to Harvard Law? Does he need to get his 70 year old parents' tax return? What does family even mean anymore in our disjoined postmodern society? I think you're wrong.
"Sure, but that just means Harvard will have to drop their price to something easier for. Anks to take a risk with. The reason the cost is 200K is because the lender faces no risk."ReplyDelete
So you've decided how to run the world's leading law school? Could you even get into Harvard Law? This is the funniest thing you see in 1Ls at TTTs. All of a sudden they're elevated from their mediocre backgrounds into the ruler of the world, deciding policy questions that impact people far more important and talented than they will ever be.
Fortunately such ridiculousness never leaves the classroom, because in the real world no one is going to listen to some loser nobody over Harvard Law School.
Awesome post! The federal loans are the one thing that holds this whole thing together. Law schools would rather put pictures of law graduates working at McDonalds on the front page of their websites than give up these loans!ReplyDelete
One point that often gets overlooked is scholarships. LawProf, I think a good post would be to examine how scholarships have impacted tuition prices in the last 20 years. While the real cost of tuition has increased, I suspect the average amount charged has not increased as much.
But since scholarships are provided to the best students (and presumably those who will be, on average, in a better situation after graduation) it is really a subsidy from the students who can least afford it.
Why do law schools even give scholarships? If you want to be a lawyer, you should expect to make a salary which reflects the cost of education. In addition, there are programs for public service debt forgiveness as well. So in a way scholarships are redundant - meeting a need which really doesn't exist.
However, scholarships are great at one thing - they pull up your GPA/LSAT scores since most people who receive scholarships would not attend your school, but rather something a bit up the USNWR rankings.
So scholarships are a "zero sum game" in all ways. Would a reasonable reform be simply to abandon this arms race and eliminate scholarships for law school?
Harvard College, not HLS. I don't know what HLS does in terms of need-based financial aid, but given that HLS is even more loaded than Harvard College on a per capita basis, making sure HLS is accessible to people from low SES backgrounds and/or those who choose to do low-paying public interest work isn't a problem for that institution. This whole discussion is a red herring.ReplyDelete
This is a terribly frustrating argument to have, but anybody who has argued about federal student loans in general has seen all of this before.ReplyDelete
The idea that credit would not be available for the "innocent" would-be HLS students is just an idea, and not one terribly likely to materialize if you consider the normal incentives law schools and lenders face. Introduce dischargeability into the picture, and lenders will lower the amount they're willing to lend. Schools will be forced to respond by lowering their tuition. There will be no such person as the hypothetical poor and innocent Barack Obama who can't find a lender to finance his $200,000 HLS education. Nothing we know about the way the world works would indicate that such a hypothetical could become reality.
2010 Harvard Law students borrowed $60 million for tuition. Only two law schools (Cooley and Georgetown) had higher amounts of annual student loans.ReplyDelete
I for one am perfectly happy to see the federal government funding a Harvard Law student's education.
We live in a country where every unproductive geriatric gets $50,000 per year as a handout. NOT AS A LOAN, AS A HANDOUT and I think it's beyond absurd to allow that entitlement but to deny some 22 year old prodigy access to a loan for education.
Old people get trillions of dollars in entitlements every year, for doing nothing. Shouldn't we target that entitlement first?
It is a red herring. Stupid really. The credit will be there.ReplyDelete
But it won't be there for a Cooley, Wayne, or [insert TTT] student. That's what makes this idea brilliant.
To the guy talking about medicare, there should be medicare for all.ReplyDelete
8:49, your post is filled with conclusory contradictions. On the one hand you claim lack of loans will force schools to lower tuitions. On the other hand you claim a private bank will lend $200,000 to a ghetto community activist.ReplyDelete
You can be shown for the ignoramous you are by my pointing out one simple fact - A ghetto community activisit with HLS admissions could not possibly qualify for a $200,000 credit card limit. So what makes you think he could qualify for a $200,000 dischargeable loan from a bank?
"It is a red herring. Stupid really. The credit will be there."ReplyDelete
No it won't. The type of credit being proposed above (private dischargeable loans) is in the class of credit card debt, and no 22 year old poor person is getting a $200,000 credit card limit regardless of where he was admitted.
Does Barack Obama really justify the status quo?ReplyDelete
Only two kinds of people would ever make the argument that limiting federal educational loans for law school tuition to $15K a year would meaningfully limit the ability of poor kids to go to genuinely elite law schools:ReplyDelete
(2) Legal academics
Do you really think a shift to dischargeable private loans would have no effect on Harvard's tuition?ReplyDelete
Do you think that Harvard would cease to give scholarships to the Barack Obamas of the world? Why would they do that?
I'm glad you, a tenured law professor, have been reduced to childish rants but I will restate the points that reduced you into this position.ReplyDelete
1. A poor person can not get $200,000 of private dischargeable debt to attend Harvard Law School. That is in the category of credit card debt, and no credit card company is lending giving a poor kid a card with a $200,000 limit regardless of where he was admitted. It's actually worse than credit card debt because credit card debt payments start the month after you make the purchase. The loan you're talking about would not require repayment for three years.
2. We live in a country where unproductive senior citizens get a $50,000 annual handout. Not a loan, a handout. In 5-10 year this is project to be trillions of dollars per year. Entitlement reform needs proportionality, and by no stretch of the imagination does it make sense to take federal education loans from Harvard Law students while granting such incredible handouts to people who will no longer contribute to society.
3. This entire proposal is an example of a needlessly overbroad regulation, which is a symptom of the imprecise nature of 1L and law professor minds. Everyone knows the problem here is schools like Cooley, NYLS, perhaps Brooklyn Law School. Rather than craft a solution that affects only them, you've decided to craft something that affects Harvard, Yale, Georgetown and other top schools. This is why most regulatiosn don't fix things. They just make things worse, needlessly.
"Do you think that Harvard would cease to give scholarships to the Barack Obamas of the world? Why would they do that?"ReplyDelete
Answered in 8:51, with citation. Can you at least read prior comments before mindlessl posting rhetorical questions?
Great post. This really gets into the nitty gritty of what exactly should be done to reform the system. I was worried that completely cutting off the federal loan spigot would have a disproportionate impact on poorer students. And we all know how merit scholarships to attract high performing LSAT students outstrips any need based scholarships. This all gets to your point that the fed should provide some dollars, but it shouldn't be unlimited. And this is why transparency is important. If students are forced to cover the difference with private loans, lenders aren't going to be as willing to lend to students at TTT's, at least they will require a cosign and higher interest rate. And if there isn't good information out there, students (and parents) will borrow large sums with ridiculous interest rates and not much will have changed. People need to understand that they should not pay Harvard prices for a TTT product.ReplyDelete
I had a discussion with a professor at my old law school who is in charge of the effort to "reenvision" it. I pointed out to him that cost containment would be a strong selling point for a law school, he pointed out that the more a law school spends per pupil the higher it is ranked by the USNWR formula. If there is one thing that USNWR could immediately is end the use of this metric.ReplyDelete
Yes, but how many in the class of 2010 were Barack Obamas? I thought the issue was whether or not Harvard would give a scholarship to an innocent, dirt-poor student. Do we have any reason to think HLS is not currently gifting money to poor people?ReplyDelete
9:10, Now that's a tailored, precise and practical solution that would not harm any innocent actors. There are many others like that. Let's focus on those.ReplyDelete
(1) This analogy is absurd on its face. The numbers also make no sense. Your whole argument is premised that a bunch of poor kids are currently going to HLS who wouldn't be able to go if federal loans for tuition were limited to 15K a year. First, very few people from poor backgrounds go to HLS as it is. Second, I would be surprised if those who do don't already get lots of need-based scholarship money (Did Barack Obama actually borrow a lot of money to go to law school? Not that he was from a genuinely low SES background -- he wasn't).ReplyDelete
(2) You're addressing a completely different issue which has literally nothing to do with law school debt financing.
(3) This proposal would have no practical effect on Harvard or Yale. (Georgetown I'm not quite as sure about). Of course it could be more "narrowly tailored," (for instance it could be limited to schools who have X % of grads in IBR) but I doubt the costs of doing so would be worth it.
Tuition only needs to be this high to serve academia not students. There is not a single credible argument for giving public loans to law students under the current predatory construct.
"Do we have any reason to think HLS is not currently gifting money to poor people?"ReplyDelete
Answered in 8:51, with citation. Can you at least read prior comments before mindlessl posting rhetorical questions?
Do you have the capacity or work ethic to do an ounce of research before machine gunning rhetorical questions? But yes let's allow a lazy, untalented person such as yourself to decide the fates of the brilliant kids who you could never compete with.
9:03 = Brian Leiter or AlthouseReplyDelete
(1) No it's not, as you so conclusory describe, "absurd" "on its face." If you would speak to any loan officer worth their salt, you would see that loans are categorized based on the security and dischargeability. Unsecured, dischargeable loans are the worst kind of loans from the bank's perspective. Loans like that include credit card loans, and that's why they have such a high rate of interest. No one is giving a Harvard Law admittee a $200,000 credit card loan. If you have the academic and mental discipline to look into this, you will educate yourself.
(2) Federal education loans are an entitlement like other entitlements. You can't do entitlement reform without proportionality because that could create the grossly unfair result that some 70 year old retiree collects $50,000 a year while some young person can't get an education because the government longer loans (loan, not handout) him or her the money.
(3) Your proposal does not make any exception for Harvard Law School, Georgetown or Yale loans. If it wouldn't affect Harvard Law loans, then why don't you write your proposal in a way to exclude such loans?
There is nothing in 8:51 or the accompanying link to indicate that HLS does not extend need-based scholarships.ReplyDelete
But even if HLS doesn't do this now, there is good reason to believe they would under a scenario as described by Lawprof.
Harvard Law will have mobs of rich people gladly willing to pay CASH to attend. All the proposal above would do is turn top schools into an even more elitist institution.ReplyDelete
Hell, why don't we just remove LSAT/GPA analysis too? That way no one will be able to attend by merit.
9:20: You are talking about an imaginary problem. There is no such thing as a brilliant poor kid who is currently going to HLS who would not be able to go to HLS if federal loan tuition money was limited to 15K a year. The fact that you think such people exist indicates you know nothing about either the demographics, the finances, or the ideology of elite law schools.ReplyDelete
Regarding the categories of loans - Do you people seriously not know why (a) credit cards charge 20% interest, (b) student loans charge 8% and (c) mortgages charge 5-6%? Not all loans are the same. Student loans get a low interest rate because of the federal subsidy. Mortgages get a low interest rate because of the security.ReplyDelete
Unsecured AND dischargeable loans get 20%. These are the riskiest loans out there. Glad I could teach you this bit of Finance 101.
"There is no such thing as a brilliant poor kid who is currently going to HLS who would not be able to go to HLS if federal loan tuition money was limited to 15K a year."ReplyDelete
I gave you one example, Barack Obama. If you read his book you'll see he was dirt poor while working in the ghetto churches of Chicago. I could give you many more but I think I'll be wasting my time.
Shouldn't we at least do a survey/analysis of Harvard students (and this isn't just about Harvard, it's about kids at all good schools) before deciding that none of them will be harmed? Can we at least agree to do that? No guesswork either, detailed person by person review.
Someone from Harvard's financial aid office could easily answer this question.
I think I've made my point, but I don't how the hell we went from "Cooley, NYLS (and perhaps schools like Brooklyn/Loyola)" scam their students by overcharging for degrees that are not worth the fraudulent job placement numbers they publish to "let's revamps the finances of Harvard, Yale and Stanford."ReplyDelete
I think the loan reform folks are more jealous of the elite schools they could not get into, than anything else. As they should be.
P.S. None of this matters because, unlike transparency (which is a very achievable goal) or changing the US News rankings formula (again an achievable goal) -- once a bunch of bitter TTT losers start asking to tinker with the finances of elite institutions -- they will be squashed by the weight of their deluded goal, like the mediocre bugs they are.ReplyDelete
Yes, this entire blog is driven by Lawprof's lingering jealousy over not going to Harvard.ReplyDelete
Holy God. So, Barack Obama would not be able to attend Harvard. He'd have to go to some place like Chapel Hill, Alabama, or Wisconsin where he would have likely gotten a full ride, excelled, and gone on to great things. Of course you don't get the automatic prestige and network, but he would not have been denied a legal education. This Obama debate is a lark. We should design policies that help the most people possible. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.ReplyDelete
"We should design policies"ReplyDelete
Said the TTT 1L gunner, passionately.
9:38, those schools are for TTT losers and anybody who goes there is a mediocre bug.ReplyDelete
Stop being an idiot. You do not give educational loans based on a person's prior work experience or income. You give them based on their capability to repay the loan after the education.ReplyDelete
The difference between student loans for Harvard Law and credit card debt is that student loans for Harvard Law will lead to 1) an almost certain chance of employment at firms like Sidley Austin, where Mr. Obama worked after graduation, 2) access to the Harvard Loan Repayment Program for public interest attorneys. And after 5 or 10 years the average Harvard Law graduate is almost certainly making a great salary. Credit card debt will not increase a person's ability to pay back the loan.
I have no clue why you are trying to derail this discussion with the typical "change to the law school/loan system would screw over poor people and minorities" shit that professors try to sling. While I question whether lenders would actually stop making loans to Cooley and NYLS students even if they weren't dischargable in bankruptcy based on the behavior we saw during the recession, bar rules against declaring bankruptcy which would presumably become harsher, and American morality that says you must always repay your lenders even if your kids go hungry, the fact that HLS students can't find someone to lend them money is not one of them.
"The difference between student loans for Harvard Law and credit card debt is that student loans for Harvard Law will lead to 1) an almost certain chance of employment at firms like Sidley Austin, where Mr. Obama worked after graduation"ReplyDelete
Spoken like a TTT gradaute with (a) zero friends from good schools and who (b) lacks the work ethic or discipline to research the "facts" he misstates.
In fact, a large portion of each Harvard Law class do not work in high paying or public interest jobs, for a variety of reasons. IIRC, even Justice Sotomayor barely had any net worth decades after graduating.
This thread, and these solutions, are a wonderful explication of the infirmed and lazy TTT mind. But yes let's allow you to run the world. Please send your ideas to professors nation wide, as well as the NY Times.
Who is this guy? Is this the "transparancy boy" I've heard so much about?ReplyDelete
this whole poor kid can't go to Harvard if we change FEd loans is just bullshit. Top student will always go to top school, we don't have to worry about those people. They will make their loan payments.ReplyDelete
lets focus on normal kid that went to normal school who is now fucked, but nobody gives s fuck because he is normal... Since he didn't go to Harvard, it does not matter that his or her life is ruined.
9:48, 9:44 here. I am a 3L at a CCN school. Almost everyone who wanted their job of choice (biglaw, fed gov, clerkship, or PI) got it in some form (maybe they had to settle for Milbank vs S+C) but they are still making 160K. You've never set foot in an elite law school, have you?ReplyDelete
"firms like Sidley Austin, where Mr. Obama worked after graduation"ReplyDelete
9:44, Barack Obama was a summer associate in the Chicago office, but never joined the firm as a full-time associate.
What school do you claim to go to 9:51? Because I can prove you're wrong. Especially in this economy.ReplyDelete
9:53: My mistake, but since he received 2 summer associate positions and graduated magna I'm sure we can assume he would have been able to get a big firm job.ReplyDelete
"this whole poor kid can't go to Harvard if we change FEd loans is just bullshit. Top student will always go to top school, we don't have to worry about those people. They will make their loan payments."ReplyDelete
Purely by the force of a 1Ls passionate statements! If it's true in your mind it's true in the real world!
Does it matter. You can't prove I'm wrong because you don't attend my school. There may be 5% of the class at my school unemployed in any of the four categories I mentioned, and there are still a few months to graduation.ReplyDelete
"9:53: My mistake"ReplyDelete
Not your only one. Why are some people so undisciplined? Why make a factually wrong statement simply because you were too lazy to research before opening your mouth?
What's funny is these are the people who want to tell everyone else what to do.
955 what are you saying?ReplyDelete
For those interested in historical tuition rates, the University of Pennsylvania (a private Ivy League school) posts a detailed annual archive, going back to 1900.ReplyDelete
For example, Penn Law costs in 1990 (in 1990 dollars):
General Fee: $706
Law School Tuition: $15,066
Library Fee: $275
9:56: Would Barack Obama have been unable to secure a full-time job at a market paying firm?ReplyDelete
"Does it matter. You can't prove I'm wrong because you don't attend my school. There may be 5% of the class at my school unemployed in any of the four categories I mentioned, and there are still a few months to graduation."ReplyDelete
I can easily prove it without being there. And nice how your former lie of "100% got the jobs they wanted" turned into 95% getting the jobs they wanted. Why do you lie so much? I can almost guarantee you don't even go to CCN.
"9:56: Would Barack Obama have been unable to secure a full-time job at a market paying firm?"ReplyDelete
More remedial loan officer education for the idiotic crowd: It doesn't matter if he *could* get such a job. It depends on whether he *did* get such a job. A bank wants a check, not a note saying "I could have been working in biglaw." That's why they would never hand $200,000 in unsecured debt to a ghetto community activist, regardless of where he got into.
9:57 What I said was "Almost everyone who wanted their job of choice (biglaw, fed gov, clerkship, or PI) got it in some form"ReplyDelete
That does not mean 100%. So tell me, since the numbers for the class of 2012 haven't been released yet, you can prove more than 5% of my classmates are unemployed right now?
Go read Clarence Thomas's experiences trying to get a biglaw job. Or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's.ReplyDelete
Name the school 10:00AM.ReplyDelete
Go read Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor's tuition bills.ReplyDelete
Why don't you pick one if you're so sure of yourself?ReplyDelete
Don't feed the troll. Maybe he'll go back to commenting at Above The Law where his obsession with rank and prestige is more at home.ReplyDelete
Anyway, we are graduating 45000 JDs for every 25000 lawyer positions every year. Couldn't the ABA simply look at the projections and issue a cutoff LSAT score below which no approved school could admit schools?
Cutting off federal loans could reduce tuition at Brookly, Cooley or NYLS, but Harvard and Yale could charge $100,000 per year, and demand cash upfront, and fill their seats 1000 times over.ReplyDelete
"Why don't you pick one if you're so sure of yourself?"ReplyDelete
Students, not schools. Sorry.ReplyDelete
No 10:04 the ABA can't do that because it would "deprive the poor of legal services" and all that.ReplyDelete
10:04: So you can't prove what you're saying at ANY of the three schools, Columbia, Chicago, or NYU (probably Chicago since you are obviously Leiter). Got it. I'd think my refusing to further out myself would actually make your job easier.ReplyDelete
No one asked you to out yourself. You said you go to a school where all graduates are able to get jobs enabling them to repay $180,000 of law school debt. I know that's a lie, so I asked for the name of your school. That shut you up as you were caught in a lie.ReplyDelete
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."ReplyDelete
I could not have said it any better myself.
For every "dirt poor" Barack Obama who shows up to HLS in bare feet and JC Penney clothes, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lower-middle class students who are getting hoodwinked into undertaking non-dischargeable debt for bleak to non-existent career prospects. Some of the posters on this blog think that the federal government (i.e. the taxpayers) should continue a policy that steers young people into risk-induced financial ruin. Their argument is that one, ONE! dirt poor kid might hit the jackpot at HLS. We all know who is really hitting the jackpot in this racket (and its not the poor kids).
Most refreshing article yet LawProf!
How is it a lie? I go to one of Columbia, Chicago, and NYU. If you can prove any of these schools can't place 95% of their graduates in biglaw, federal government, PI, or clerkships, or consulting/banking, you win.ReplyDelete
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."ReplyDelete
If only the LSATs were so forgiving, eh? Then maybe you could have gotten into Harvard, instead of posting on a comment board about how Harvard admittees shouldn't be given federal loans!
You go to neither of those school 10:10.ReplyDelete
10:12: And I suppose after I tell you, you'd like my student ID and SSN to verify I attend, right? Law professor troll.ReplyDelete
"I had a discussion with a professor at my old law school who is in charge of the effort to "reenvision" it. I pointed out to him that cost containment would be a strong selling point for a law school, he pointed out that the more a law school spends per pupil the higher it is ranked by the USNWR formula. If there is one thing that USNWR could immediately is end the use of this metric."ReplyDelete
This is an easy and doable change that should happen yesterday.
If it is easy, how is it to be done?ReplyDelete
Call Bob Morse and tell him to remove that column from his spreadsheet?ReplyDelete
It's scary idea for deans because it appeals to both the right (free market mentality, getting rid of taxpayer funding for more lawyers, and reducing the number of liberal academics) and the left (fairness for student borrowers). You'd have to start with Sens. Boxer and Grassley and work from there.ReplyDelete
To add precision to your statement (precision is important people), It's a scary idea to:ReplyDelete
1. Deans from TTTs who use fraudulent numbers to trick students into taking out loans. It is not important to the Deans at Harvard and Yale, because they could charge $500,000 tuition and fill their classes. It would just be a class of wealthy kids for whose parents $500,000 is pocket change compared to having a HLS child.
2. Poor students who were hoping to attent a top school by way of good performance and subsidized government loans.
@10:10 that's not what I'm told by recent grads from one of the schools you list.ReplyDelete
I'd hardly call 6-8% interest "subsidized." They got rid of subsidized Staffords this year any way. Most people who go federal use GradPlus. My friends with private loans actually have a lower interest rate.ReplyDelete
I think the point is marred by using "the dirt poor kid". The people who suffer from the effects of high tuition-- in college and law school-- are the middle class folks who are neither rich nor poor. On paper, they may appear prosperous. Their home gives them a high value (sometimes) asset, but they actually do need financial support.ReplyDelete
10:46: Last year wasn't great, but I don't think more than 5% of the class is not employed at a decent paying midlaw/biglaw job or a job that qualifies for LRAP. c/o 2012 is a lot better. I can only think of 3 people who still don't have anything lined up, and I'm one of them as I wrote about yesterday.ReplyDelete
You don't go to CCN. Stop it. You probably don't even go to a T50 school. You're a bitter graduate from 2007.ReplyDelete
"I'd hardly call 6-8% interest "subsidized.""ReplyDelete
What do you call the 17 to 35% interest rates people have to pay on unsubsidized and unsecured loans such as credit cards, and the loans LawProf recommends above?
Sorry, but I've posted about my story on this blog before. You're the TTT dean trying to stifle a good idea.ReplyDelete
10:54: What are the current rates for private student loans?ReplyDelete
10:47, if student loans aren't subsidized then what is the point of the post you're commenting in?ReplyDelete
"What are the current rates for private student loans?"ReplyDelete
Please link me to a bank offering "private" student loans. I'm sorry that you are commenting so ignorantly, but as was the point of the post you're commenting on, student loans are subsidized in two ways (a) lack of dischargeability and (b) a government guarantee. There is no such thing as a truly "private" "student" loan.
"You're the TTT dean trying to stifle a good idea."ReplyDelete
If I was a TTT Dean or Professor, I would be trying to stifle the transparency movement, which attacks my biggest and most easily curable sin.
10:56: 10:42 said poor people were hoping to attend law school using subsidized government loans- that's not an option anymore and subsidized Staffords constituted a low amount of federal loans for graduates anyway. If you are poor and don't get massive financial aid most of your loans will be GradPlus.ReplyDelete
Private educational loans are no longer non-dischargeable or guaranteed by the government.ReplyDelete
11:02, Before writing your post, did you consider stopping and asking yourself,ReplyDelete
"Why would LawProf write a post attacking federal loan subsidies if they didn't exist?"
It's good to check your thoughts for stupidity.
"Private educational loans are no longer non-dischargeable or guaranteed by the government."ReplyDelete
Do you have a link? Where can a person get an education loan that is dischargeable in bankruptcy and not guaranteed by the government?
11:02: Transparency can easily be deflected by good marketing and lowered admissions standards. But if the money dries up, the music stops.ReplyDelete
There's not a single school with 100% placement in the USN&WR rankings. Someone must be lying about how well their school performs.ReplyDelete
11:04: The word "subsidy" isn't mentioned once in lawprof's post. I'd hardly call the current system a subsidy for students. Law schools, maybe. But you need to remember who's side you're on.ReplyDelete
All educations loans, regardless of whether they are government-subsidized, cannot be included in bankruptcy. I filed Chapter 7 two months ago. Trust me. I tried. NONE of them qualify.ReplyDelete
11:06, Cutting off federal loans can more easily be deflected by lowered admissions standards, and admitting kids from families with savings.ReplyDelete
For example, law schools have set up LLM programs admitting students from poor foreign countries who use their parents' life savings to attend with the hopes of getting a biglaw job.
"I'd hardly call the current system a subsidy for students. Law schools, maybe. But you need to remember who's side you're on."ReplyDelete
Well you don't get to rewrite the english language. Less hubris and more work-ethic are what you need my friend. You're the classic obnoxious idiot.
11:06: Will a lender give a loan to someone who goes to Cooley with a 140 LSAT? And if rich kids want to flood the TTTs, be my guest. The problem here is what the system is doing to the middle and lower middle classes.ReplyDelete
11:10: When people refer to subsidized student loans they are talking about subsidized Staffords. Try typing "subsidized student loan" into Google.ReplyDelete
No we've already established that a lender won't give an unsecured and unsubsidized $200,000 loan to any 22 year old regardless of where they go to school.ReplyDelete
11:12, have you alerted Webster's? They should know the ruler of the english language has decided what the word "subsidized loan" means.ReplyDelete
You've hardly established anything. I'm still waiting for the "proof" that NYU students can't get decent paying jobs.ReplyDelete
"And if rich kids want to flood the TTTs, be my guest. The problem here is what the system is doing to the middle and lower middle classes."ReplyDelete
i.e. punish the middle and lower middle class student by taking their federal loans away.
From the United States government:ReplyDelete
"Direct Subsidized Loans—Direct Subsidized Loans are for students with financial need. Your school will review the results of your Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSASM) and determine the amount you can borrow. You are not charged interest while you’re in school at least half-time and during grace periods and deferment periods."
I'm not seeing anything about non-dischargability here.
"I'm not seeing anything about non-dischargability here."ReplyDelete
Dear lord we're talking to a complete retard.
11:16: So you think it's a good thing that a student be allowed to borrow $200,000 to go to NYLS on the taxpayer dime?ReplyDelete
No, I don't think the way you solve that problem is by cutting off federal loans to HYS students.ReplyDelete
Excellent post, and I think the basic plan makes a lot of sense. The whole Harvard discussion could be avoided just by looking at HLS's admissions/financial aid pages: http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/jd/finaid/index.html. Harvard bases financial aid solely on need--not merit. And, yes, you will have to give HLS information about your parents' income and assets if you want financial aid from them. Their approach is to distribute their aid dollars equitably and, if a family can contribute to a student's tuition, they will take that into account.ReplyDelete
Note that Harvard also has a "low income protection plan" that sounds like something a seedy insurance company would market--but it's actually an excellent loan repayment assistance plan that helps even students who get low-paying **private sector** jobs.
So there's really no reason to fear that a future Barack Obama couldn't choose to attend Harvard (or Yale, for that matter, which also bases financial aid strictly on need). LawProf's basic plan seems like an excellent one that would help halt the crazy spiral of law school tuition and, in turn, help us preserve the good in our pitiful profession.
PS The $58 million figure on HLS loans cited above is not reliable: It is an estimate, as the original source reports. HLS doesn't disclose the percentage of its students who have loans; the $58 million number was based on extrapolation from other schools. But given HLS's unusual status (both in prestige and assets) I'm not sure that any extrapolation makes sense.
11:16, Where did you go to law school that when faced with the legal question, "are student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy" all you know to do is find some quote from studentaid.ed.gov. Do you really think that website has any legal authority whatsoever?ReplyDelete
I demand to know where you went to law school, because that's just atrocious.
If you tell me the name of your school I will give you the citation to the bankruptcy code section governing dischargeability of student loans. I went to a school that taught me basic legal research skills.
As of 2010, the federal government stopped guaranteeing private educational loans. Such loans are now truly private: they're not guaranteed and they are dischargeable (this doesn't apply to pre-2010 private educational loans).ReplyDelete
Of course since it's the government's current policy to loan any amount of money to anybody who isn't in default, this means there's very little current market for private educational loans.
"PS The $58 million figure on HLS loans cited above is not reliable: It is an estimate, as the original source reports. HLS doesn't disclose the percentage of its students who have loans"ReplyDelete
I didn't know that was an extrapolation, but if HLS doesn't disclose the information you need for the conclusions drawn in your first few paragraphs, doesn't that disqualify those paragraphs.
Also, honestly, did you think this was purely about Harvard Law School? It's about all "good law schools."
11:20 The argument I was in was what SUBSIDIZED STUDENT LOAN means. Subsidized student loans are commonly known by students to mean Subsidized Stafford Loans. I'm not sure how clearer I can be.ReplyDelete
"Of course since it's the government's current policy to loan any amount of money to anybody who isn't in default, this means there's very little current market for private educational loans."ReplyDelete
Exactly, so private dischargeable educational loans do not exist. If you find a link please let your audience know.
That's not in any way the only definition of "subsidized student loan." You need to add the word stafford to narrow a finance term into the term you're using.ReplyDelete
Harvard's Bar loans were administered through this program for 2011 graduates.
Thanks DJM. I'll ask this again: does anybody actually know if Barack Obama borrowed his tuition money? If HLS's current policy was in place when he was a student, it sounds as if he probably paid little or no tuition.ReplyDelete
Thank you for the citation 11:24. Quoting from the link:ReplyDelete
The US Bankruptcy Code at 11 USC 523(a)(8) provides an exception to bankruptcy discharge for education loans. This page provides a history of the legislative language in this section of the US Bankruptcy Code.
Student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy prior to 1976. With the introduction of the US Bankruptcy Code (11 USC 101 et seq) in 1978, the ability to discharge education loans was limited. Subsequent changes in the law have further narrowed the dischargeability of education debt.
The exception to discharge for private student loans evolved over time. Prior to 1984, only private student loans made by a "nonprofit institution of higher education" were excepted from discharge. This was intended to protect the National Defense Student Loan Program (NDSL), the predecessor to the Perkins Loan Program. Those loans were made by colleges using a revolving loan fund created using matching federal contributions. The Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 made private student loans from all nonprofit lenders excepted from discharge, not just colleges, by striking the words "of higher education". The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 expanded this to include all "qualified education loans", regardless of whether a nonprofit institution was involved in making the loans.
Timeline . . .
Here you go LawProfReplyDelete
From a tv. station in DenverReplyDelete
DENVER (KABC) -- President Barack Obama announced a plan Wednesday that could give millions of young people some relief on their student loan payments.
Speaking at the University of Colorado Denver, the president recalled his struggles with student loan debt, saying that he and his wife, Michelle, together owed more than $120,000 in law school debt that took nearly a decade to pay off.
11:25: This is not a finance textbook. This is a blog post about student loans. When people are talking about student loans and you use the term subsidized it means Stafford subsidized loans. Again, do a Google search for "subsidized student loan" and see what the first few results are. Or ask your finaid office how to get a subsidized student loan.ReplyDelete
11:25, a bar loan is akin to a credit card i.e. it's not a lot of money and it has a higher interest rate. My bar loan had an interest rate of 12% which is close to what I pay on credit cards.ReplyDelete
You can't get a $200,000 bar loan.
P.S. I'm not sure bar loans aren't "education loans." I say this because my law school had to "certify" my bar loan.ReplyDelete
The rest of the quote, sorryReplyDelete
He said that sometimes he'd have to make monthly payments to multiple lenders, and the debt meant they were not only paying for their own degrees but saving for their daughters' college funds simultaneously.
"I've been in your shoes. We did not come from a wealthy family," the president said to cheers.
"When people are talking about student loans and you use the term subsidized it means Stafford subsidized loans."ReplyDelete
No. Stop it with this hubris. You don't get to rewrite the english language. You don't get to deny top school students federal loans. You're not as important as you think you are.
If you read Obama's book. He was very poor, working sh*t editing and other jobs. He drove a complete piece of garbage car. He was as poor as any of the people you see at OWS. I wish he'd talk more about this experience but for some reason he's turned into jetsetting golf playing rich Obama.ReplyDelete
Also, to be clear, it's not just about him. He's just an example.
I don't think that limiting the amount of Federal money a law student can borrow will help the current mess at all. Here is why: when I went to law school, the max a person could borrow was 18,500 (10K unsub, 8,5K sub) in federal money per year. Not surprisingly, this was the tuition of my law school at the time I went.
A student who needed more money than that for living, expenses, etc... had to take out private loans. These facts did not stop the explosion of tuition over the last 15 years so limiting the federal amount borrowed will not be a first step at all in solving the problem.
If you want to see the problem start to correct itself, restore standard consumer protections to these loans retroactively as well as moving forward. The price of law school will plummet. Guaranteed. How do I know this? In October 1998, Clinton signed an Amendment to the HEA that made all Federal loans non-dischargeable in BK moving forward as well as retroactively. Approximately one year after that date (beginning in approx 1999), the current explosion in law school (and college) tuition resulted. I don't think the huge increase in tuition since about 1999 and non-dischargeability are merely coincidental. I think schools figured out that they could charge as much as they wanted and the government would loan it out because there were no consumer protections on the loans. They would be paid back no matter what.
The real problem are these loans. Sorry to be the one to say this but the general public does not really care about whether or not a bunch of lawyers can find jobs. The general public is uninformed and thinks all lawyers are rich, powerful, etc... The real problem lies in the predatory nature of these crappy loans. If consumer protections are restored, the government will think twice about lending money (might be lost in BK), banks as well. Like the housing market, the price will plummet because the easy credit is gone.
I'm torn about the whole "why are there even merit scholarships" question. On the one hand, it does work as a wealth transfer from those students least able to succeed in law school (and presumably least able to get a good job afterwards) to those students most likely to succeed on their merits.ReplyDelete
But at the same time, do we really want to say that "merit" scholarships are wrong? That is, it seems fair to reward meritorious conduct with scholarship money. In this case, the meritorious conduct would be putting in the time and work necessary to get a high GPA from a good college, and to succeed on the LSAT.
Admittedly, I can't assess the topic truly objectively, as a beneficiary of the system.
Don't the pretigious law schools compete with each other on the basis of their incoming students' LSAT scores?ReplyDelete
I think that could do a lot to ensure some sort of merit-based admission policy survives a policy change such as Lawprof is suggesting. Poor kids will high LSATs will be desired by top schools and worth spending money to acquire.
11:36: do you have any links? I am interested in reading more on some of the claims you have made.ReplyDelete
(1)HLS and YLS grant scholarship money strictly on the basis of financial need.
(2) Most HLS and YLS graduates are still graduating with large amounts of debt.
What does that tell you about most HLS and YLS graduates?
Elite law schools are full of rich kids -- to be "middle class" at an elite law school means you come from a family with income in the low six figures. Almost no one from a genuinely lower class background ever goes to an elite law school (if you think Obama was from such a background you need to think again).
In any case the focus on elite law schools in this thread is a distraction. Elite law schools don't need unlimited federal educational loans to subsidize their operations, and people who go to such schools don't need unlimited federal loans in order to do so. Unlimited federal loans *are* crucial to the basic financial structure of 90% of law schools. That's where putting limits on those loans will have a real effect. And that's where the real problem lies -- and arguing about whether Barack Obama could have gone to Harvard Law School without federal loans has basically no relevance to the real problem.
"Elite law schools don't need unlimited federal educational loans to subsidize their operations, and people who go to such schools don't need unlimited federal loans in order to do so."ReplyDelete
The first part is undeniably true, as demonstrated by all the rich kids who can't - but would gladly - buy their way into HLS if they could.
The second part of your statement is definitely not true. No one is going to lend a poor kid $200,000 in unsecured dischargeable debt to go to HLS.
LawProf, can you somehow ban the guy that keeps insulting every other person commenting here?ReplyDelete
Poor kids don't go to elite law schools, just like they don't go to elite colleges, and for the same reasons. Again, 3% of the undergraduates at Harvard College come from families who have incomes below the national *median* ($50K), which is a long way from actually poor. There are very few truly *middle class* kids at elite colleges, let alone poor ones. This is NOT because working class and truly middle class (let alone poor) kids "can't afford" to go to elite colleges: Elite colleges (and apparently law schools) will give full rides to any poor kids who manage to get in. Practically none do. Federal educational loans have literally nothing to do with that problem.ReplyDelete
"Poor kids don't go to elite law schools, just like they don't go to elite colleges, and for the same reasons."ReplyDelete
Sigh. OK whatever.
"3% of the undergraduates at Harvard College come from families who have incomes below the national *median* ($50K), which is a long way from actually poor."ReplyDelete
A 22 year old's inclusion into the category of "poor" is not defined by his family's income. And $50,000 is in no way not poor in our society.
At the graduate level, who cares how much your parents make? How is it even remotely acceptable to expect someone to ask their parents to pay for grad school?ReplyDelete
Exactly 12:04. A 22 year old is an adult.ReplyDelete
Prof. Campos has hit a nerve. I've not seen this level of viciousness and smugness in any of the previous comment threads on this site.ReplyDelete
That'll happen when you decide to affect the lives of students at the world's best educational institutions, because you have a problem with low ranked law schools.ReplyDelete
"How is it even remotely acceptable to expect someone to ask their parents to pay for grad school?"ReplyDelete
Or the rest of society? Let's face facts, parents can and do pay for their adult children's education. My parents offered to help pay for my post-grad education but I turned them down for the entirely sensible reason that I wasn't sure they'd make it back. I doubt parents in America are different - in fact, given the number who expect to save for their children's university education (something that happens in few other 1st world countries I can think of), this does not seem unlikely.
Anyway, Campos's point is that the students themselves are advantaged compared to those who are from poorer backgrounds because their parent can and do help them pay for their education, as well as providing a leg-up in terms of connections and networking. This leads to the perpetuation of an over-class, and sets claims of 'diversity' at the schools in question at naught.
@10:51 nope, I'm a millionaire with a tremendous amount of empathy for the crimes perpetrated on people like me who simply had the great misfortune to be the last in on the Ponzi scheme. Settle down. We're all (or hopefully most of us) on the same side here. This comment section seems to degenerate into fratricide sometimes, save your vitriol for the real enemy.ReplyDelete
@ 11:44: Your request was broad but here are a few:ReplyDelete
They are not completely comprehensive but they illustrate my point. Also check out Pottow's paper on BK and student loans. You may have to pay for the whole paper, unsure. If you want the actual text of the HEA for the 1998 amendments and not just an interpretation, you may have to dig pretty deep.
"LawProf, can you somehow ban the guy that keeps insulting every other person commenting here?"ReplyDelete
It's Brian "Mr. Congeniality" Leiter, the faux philosopher. He can't even say "Hello" or "Goodbye" without appending a juvenile insult.
I think the process in problem solving is to first get and analyze the data, and then recommend changes. Leapfrogging the first step is dangerous.ReplyDelete
Can someone research Leiter's blog posts and publications to see if he's made the same points he's been making in this thread?ReplyDelete
Yes, and unfortunately the ABA is absolutely unwilling to reduce the number of ABA accredited law schools in any meaningful way, or reduce class sizes, so the most rational and economical solutions for our over production of JDs are not available.ReplyDelete
Lois, is it really Leiter. I'm unfamiliar with his work, but surely he doesn't really resort to referring to everyone as TTT that disagrees with him? If so, UChicago just went down in my book.ReplyDelete
If it really is Brian Leiter, then he just spent the entire day writing comments on this blog. Don't you have more important things to do?ReplyDelete
I'm surprised to hear him use TTT as an insult, but otherwise the tone and style is Leiter.ReplyDelete
Let us all agree on one thing. As a tool to communicate and debate ideas, blogs have made law review articles obsolete. Any professor who seriously wants to explore his or her area of interest should create or at least comment on that topic's blogs.ReplyDelete
12:40: I'm Googling Leiter student loans as we speak.ReplyDelete
@12:35: thanks for the linksReplyDelete
Whomever it is has obviously had this argument before and probably many times. I'm sure most of the insults are repeats as well.ReplyDelete
Law reviews are not obsolete.They serve different functions, not the least of which are to give students a chance to edit, research, and write. Blogs can be useful in other ways. It's not either/or.ReplyDelete
"They serve different functions, not the least of which are to give students a chance to edit, research, and write."ReplyDelete
. . . for free, without any credit or attribution.
I wouldn't say TTT is an insult, even if it once, now it's just a commonly used acronym for law ranked and expensive law school with misleading job placement statistics.ReplyDelete
I doubt this is Brian Leiter. This person spelled out his platform in an earlier comment. He is mad about HANDOUTS to the elderly and he hates both regulations and 1Ls. All of that is in addition to his hang up about B Obama. That's probably not BL, just some crazy guy at home on his computer.ReplyDelete
@1:24-- Students write Notes and edit one another's Notes, and there are professors who credit assistance.ReplyDelete
1:32 is right "anti elderly boy" has posted here before. He hates old people.ReplyDelete
To be fair, not many people like 1Ls, regulations or senior citizen handouts.ReplyDelete
@1:36: the shit profs write in those articles is just plain junk, they do not even do their own research. I was editing an article by McDonnell from U of Minnesota, that clown did not even do his own research. He cited entire articles and books, I had to read the whole fucking thing before I could figure out what page to cite. But even then I was just putting down random pages because some of the ideas were not in there.ReplyDelete
They do that all the time which is why working on a law review with point citation requirements is awful.ReplyDelete
@ 1:52--That's the ticket. Your experience is everyone's experience.ReplyDelete
Isn't that just another part of the law school scam? Once the students have figured out that they are not jobs, tell them that if they do a ton of free grunt work for you on law review, then they can get a job. Then when that turns out to be a lie, tell them if they do a free internship then they will get a job.ReplyDelete
lawprof - haven't read the comments yet and really looking forward to it (transparency boy always ruins any intelligent back and forth) but I have been hard on you about this issue and want to thank you for posting this. Even with transparency (an important thing) the biggest scam is the schools being able to charge whatever they want based on an asymmetrical loan that carries risk for only side of the bargain. So thanks at least for this.ReplyDelete
*NOT really looking forward to it.ReplyDelete
2:09: Law review might be a bad example, I can bet that most LR kids will get some type of job.ReplyDelete
But I deff agree about free internships. Lawyers are just using students for free grunt work but when they graduate it's like "sorry but we are a small practice can't really take you on"
At my school career service had the nerve to say that if you can't get a job just find somewhere to work for free to pad your resume to wait out bad economy. I guess they assume that parents will just continue footing the bill for that too.
@12:26pm Newsflash: MOST PARENTS do not pay for their kid's undergrad education and legal/graduate level education.ReplyDelete
How about this for a professor-centric solution? All professors at bad law schools quit their jobs. If there are no professors then the law school can't stay open.ReplyDelete
2:50 here. LOFL...I knew transparency boy would flip out on this topic. Lawprof you don't recognize his arguments? Its the same shit every day....finally you're getting the treatment. He's the same guy who flipped out on the IBR does not compound interest conversation (that you sadly linked to), the "SEC was doing its job when it came to Madoff" guy, and the one who flips out about transparency....every....single...day with horribly thought-out arguments. You do realize its the same guy, right? Amusing to finally see you get the act pointed your way....ReplyDelete
The legend of transparency boy.ReplyDelete
its not hard to be a legend online....just endlessly ramble your same point over and over again in a comment thread where everyone is a captive audience. Also, be extremely stupid and use the lowest form of argumentation.ReplyDelete
Exactly, which is why your legend is that of transparency boy's nemesis, which makes you even more pathetic than transparency boy.ReplyDelete
lol...transparency boy rears his ugly retarded head. do you ever go offline?ReplyDelete
do you have a life? recalls past comment threads -- no, no you don't.
Not "transparency boy" but your repeated comments about transparency boy are far more annoying than anything written by transparency boy.ReplyDelete
sorry transparency boy, calling a spade a spade is how life usually works. but nice try at reverse psychology. you fail at this just like everything else in your sad little life.ReplyDelete
How do I know its you? You reply defensively within minutes of my comment. Loser.