These estimates appear to be completely unregulated by Uncle Sam or anyone else, which creates an opportunity for law schools to manipulate the numbers. And in fact the cost of living estimates law schools make vary enormously for reasons that don't seem to have anything to do with the actual cost of living students will incur.
Compare, for example, Florida A&M's cost of living estimate ($25,000) with Florida State's ($16,900). These schools are in the same city, yet a FAMU student will be able to borrow $24,300 more in living expenses over the course of law school than an FSU student. Interestingly, the good folks at FAMU estimate that it costs more to live in the Florida panhandle than NYU estimates it costs to live in Greenwich Village (NYU's estimated cost of living is $24,368). According to this cost of living comparator, housing is 173% more expensive in New York City than in Tallahassee, and the overall cost of living is 63% higher. Update: FAMU's law school is actually in Orlando. This changes the numbers above only slightly however, as the same calculator estimates Orlando to be just 7% more expensive than Tallahassee.
A cursory glance at LST's curated numbers reveals all sorts of similar anomalies, such as Campbell ($26,700) estimating a cost of living 50.8% higher than Duke ($17,708). Why, for example, can you borrow nearly $30,000 per year in living expenses to attend Chapman, located in scenic Orange, CA, but only $20,000 if you're admitted to UCLA and must inhabit the slums of Westwood? This adds up to increasing a Chapman student's limit on the federal loan credit card by nearly $30,000 relative to a UCLA student over the course of their respective law school adventures.
Chapman's estimated living expenses for a single graduate student are particularly striking given the school's employment and salary numbers. 16.7% of Chapman's 2010 class reported a salary of at least $60,000, and 75% of the class failed to report a salary of at least $41,600. What sort of after tax income does someone have to pay what the school estimates it costs merely to live where Chapman is located? Keep in mind that all the numbers quoted in this post are only for nine months of living expenses, since that is what schools are required to calculate when
So, subtracting the cost of books and supplies, Chapman estimates it costs approximately $3,100 per month for a single person to live in the area where Chapman's graduates are expected to get jobs. In order to have such an income, a person must have a pre-tax income of at least $50,000. In other words, according to the school, the vast majority of Chapman graduates aren't earning incomes sufficient to cover the cost of attending Chapman for "free."
Glancing at these various cost of living estimates, the general pattern appears to be this: Bottom feeder schools tend to make extremely high cost of living estimates, apparently since they at least unconsciously understand that what they're actually selling is a three-year taxpayer-funded postponement of un- and under-employment. Since these loans aren't going to be repaid anyway, why not allow people to borrow as much as possible without drawing the attention of the authorities to this sordid little grift?
By contrast, some relatively high-ranked schools go if anything in the opposite direction, making quite modest cost of living estimates, no doubt in an effort to make the school's overall cost of attendance seem less daunting given these schools' employment and salary numbers. For instance, Hastings, located in the middle of the most expensive city in the nation, (and sporting terrifying placement figures) has a lower estimated cost of living than dozens of flyover country establishments. (See also Boston University etc.).
Anyway, all this merely highlights another aspect of the absurdity of allowing law schools to make up whatever numbers they want when they determine the cost of legal education, before passing that cost on to their students and eventually the American public.
I'd like to add that for many schools, you are in fact required to borrow the whole boat if you are receiving grants (on second thought this may be HYS specific as no other schools give grants).
What's the problem here then? Why can't students simply calculate their COL in a more reasonable way on their own and take out loans accordingly?
At least we could say that Prop Joe got what was coming to him (though I rather liked his character. I don't know if we can say the same about the assistant deans.ReplyDelete
Very interesting. Looking at COL for Boston schools:ReplyDelete
BU - $17,618
BC - $19,090
New England - $21,606
Suffolk - $21,920
H - $25,343 (though technically Cambridge)
Northeastern - $25,694
While I have some critiques, overall LST is doing a very good job of getting good (but not too much) information out there.ReplyDelete
This reminds me of the Segal article. Some guy named Wasserman was using student loans while attending Thomas Jefferson for trips to Europe and luxury apartments. Oh right, I remember now, he spent time in Prague using bar study loans (15000 can be take out for a three month studying) and probably eating out every night and living the high life. The SSS delusion is a perfect combination for a perfect storm. Everyone believes they will be the exception to the rule, and when your exceptional, no reason not to live the high life. If law students were modest and risk adverse and truly dedicated to learning, they wouldn't so easily accept these loans. But the people who I have met that are lawyers have a certain personality that makes them more willing to take these loans out in the first place.ReplyDelete
Professor Campos, what's your opinion on Jack Marshall's view of unemployed lawyers as "lazy, unimaginative and unbelievable"?
WHAT THE HELL FUCK HAPPENED AT GOERGE MASON? Just a few years ago they had like $10,000 instate tutition.ReplyDelete
As with most aspects of the scam, the problem isn't just what happens to individual students, careless though they may be. The problem is with the taxpayers who will backstop an individual student's inability to repay his loans, whether they were spent for tuition or rent or a week in Vail.
6:41, Stop asking lawprof and DJM to do all your work for you. They have full time jobs. You don't. Write your own damn advocacy piece.ReplyDelete
This is an important factor in deciding on law school. Also, opportunity costs should be a big consideration. (I know that you have mentioned this latter area before, LawProf.)ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, too many lemmings focus only on the potential "upside" of going to law school. At least, now some of them are starting to look more critically at these dung heaps.
Students can also borrow against a COL number provided for each law school summer abroad program. These vary significantly (and often as arbitrarily as the COL numbers discussed above), and some of this money is undoubtedly borrowed to finance the student's personal summer vacation.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
@ 6:45 A.M.ReplyDelete
Shut your fucking pig ignorant mouth. I wasn't talking to you.
Hopefully things are a lot different now than they were in 2002-2005, when I was in law school. In those days, there was actually a line of thought popular among the students that we should "max out" our loans and live as comfortably as we could during law school. There were a number of rationalizations for this, namely that we could repay it after we got jobs, and even that we would perform better as law students if we allowed ourselves to live a little. Of course, "maxing out" the loan in those days meant borrowing $24,000 a year...ReplyDelete
Why do you call them high interest loans? My mortgage is 6 3/8 and that's on a house.ReplyDelete
7:04: That's a terrible interest rate for a home loan these days. A 30 year fixed is well under 4% with no points.ReplyDelete
Omar to the TTT Dean: I got the shotgun, you got the federally guaranteed high interest loan kickback. It's all in the game though, right?ReplyDelete
Florida State Law is in Tallahassee, while Florida A and M law is in Orlando (though Florida a and M itself is in Tallahassee.) orlando is quite a bit more expensive than Tallahassee.ReplyDelete
A little bit of comment moderation would make this site a whole lot better.ReplyDelete
The cost of living for Hastings is deceptive. There estimated monthly rent is 1,200 a month. I am not sure how this is calculated, but if you live by yourself in SF this won't cut it.ReplyDelete
Most people in the area around Hastings live off of Gov/ aid.
Back in my day (late '90s), maxing out your loans was called "income smoothing."
More people with massive debt who got tricked into going to TTT law schools should consider just going to school forever and living off the free student loan money. See for example, http://gma.yahoo.com/michigan-man-29-college-degrees-counting-191653707--abc-news-topstories.htmlReplyDelete
I always thought the higher figures compensated for the assumption that these students would be unable to find a summer position at even subsistence wages. Because the school has no money to fund summer internships, students would actually need a full year of living expenses. This may be misuse of student loan funds, but I know it is pretty common for students at my school to take out more than they need to float themselves for a few weeks at the beginning of summer.ReplyDelete
I have the same impression as boredJD. Word for word.ReplyDelete
The higher COL at the TTTs factor in additional costs to deal with lemming learning disabilities and the steep learning curve. Last I checked, tutors, hornbooks and nutshell books are very expensive.ReplyDelete
Bravo LP. Just when I think we covered the scam you come back with a new layer. This is one is very subtle. I never thought about the coa issue because I am lucky enough to have my parents pay for my living expenses which my school estimates at about 19.5k, we spent about 13.5.ReplyDelete
I have a friend to who went to atl john marshall who spent 10k her 1l year on living the life.
Whenever the bankruptcy protection is restored I can see it only covering cost of tuition and the books because a man got to live in law school or out. So let those fools who bored full coa pay for their poor choice. I can see even boomers getting behind this.
My 2 cents.
Bored JD and Kyle: That sounds plausible. The problem now though is that a very small percentage of students outside of the top X schools (with X becoming an increasingly small number) are getting paid summer work. Everybody else does unpaid "internships" and the like, if they don't jet off to somebody's International Sports Law summer program on Lake Como.ReplyDelete
@6:37 - SPOILER ALERT! The most important thing LP could do all day is delete that comment for those unfortunate souls that have yet to see The Wire. Maybe not THE most important thing, but close.ReplyDelete
I imagine the COA is less of a conspiracy and more the product of three mindless administrators coming up with figures while they think about what's on their DVR. Hopefully, it's The Wire.
This is a perfect example of why student loans are never going to be forgiven.ReplyDelete
Many of these bums are gaming the system now and living the high life on loans while they sit and f around on facebook during class. Nobody is going to feel sorry for them when they're $150,000 in debt and unemployed even though $90,000 of it was on tuition.
When entitled law students are living better than people that are actually working, it's gonna be a tough sell to allow those same students to turn around and file for bk.
The idea above about only allowing bk for the tuition seems like a possibility though.
You are a naive Republican dumbass. The government will have to forgive because people will not be able to pay them. There is a difference between strategic default on a home mortgage (voluntary) and inability to pay a student loan because of no job (involuntary). You cannot have a bunch of credit zombies (40 million) walking around in an economy built on buying shit.
Your example of someone living the high life is anecdotal at best. The vast majority of borrowers do not game the system. Just like the vast majority of students want to pay their debt. However, we also want what is fair. If you know something we don't know...if you have data we do not, list it here. Otherwise, STFU.
Why isn't the scary adjective "predatory" applied to educational loans the way it was to home loans? I think there is more of a case to be made for calling educational loans "predatory" then there was for home loans.ReplyDelete
9:15 "wants what is fair"ReplyDelete
And what, pray tell, would that be?
The argument is that you overpaid for a law school education based on exaggerated employment outcomes. So tell me again why you should have your loans forgiven for going out drinking and whoring?
Entitled little asshole.
What is fair...that's rich.
@ 9:40 A.M.ReplyDelete
"Hi, Jack Marshall!"
Here is the reason fuckface:
You cannot refinance the loans, interest capitalizes during deferment and forbearance which results in a mushrooming balance, the loan servicers will not work with you, and assholes like you make naive comments about something you know nothing about. These "terms" were in none of the paperwork we signed because there are no truth in lending requirements for student loans. I did not overpay for my law degree, I lived at home. All monies borrowed went to tuition and books. Many of my classmates did the same.
Learn about something before you comment about it. You ignorant fuck.
You are too stupid to own a computer.
My wife left me after struggling with me to find a job over the past 2 years. It became impossible for me, and, yes, it became impossible for her. She had bigger and better dreams; so did I. I can't say I blame her for abandoning ship.ReplyDelete
In this situation, the lender is more at fault than the debtor. The lender has the resources to understand the risk and the poor expected outcome while the debtors generally don't. Therefore the risk of default should be placed on the lender. If that means the lender wouldn't lend money for law school tuition to 75% of current law students, WTF does that tell you about the market price of law school?
lol. same thing happened here. gf left in large part due to money issues.
When we first met in school I was all that and she was into me, then the realities of the recession and struggling for jobs changed her view I guess. In the words of a famous rapper, “… cash rules everything around me”
"My wife left me after struggling with me to find a job over the past 2 years. It became impossible for me, and, yes, it became impossible for her. She had bigger and better dreams; so did I. I can't say I blame her for abandoning ship."ReplyDelete
I can't either, you dumb loser bum. What kind of moron can't find ANY job with a college and law degree?
You're all a bunch of lazy bums. That's why law schools will continue to dominate - it's because the only graduates who CAN'T get a job are a bunch of feeble, inept morons who don't pose any kind of a fight.
These comments remind me more and more of my time on Xbox Live: a bunch of 13 year-olds screaming profanities in order to get a reaction from anyone.ReplyDelete
Like John Galt, I find myself wondering, "Who is 10:12?"
Update to the Jack Marshall thread:ReplyDelete
It is basic economics. The theory of supply and demand. There are many more lawyers being produced by law schools then jobs being created.
Furthermore, if you have a large amount of debt like 150k most entry level jobs that pay below 60k will not allow a law graduate to meet his or her debt obligations.
The argument being made about law schools is about consumer protection. Law students should be able to know what they are getting themselves involved before taking on the debt.
10:09 - You're only looking at one side of the issue.ReplyDelete
It is exactly because the lender understood the risks that the lender lent.
Just because the borrower did not understand it as well as he/she could have does not change the equation.
The lender was acting within the rules--if the schools cheated, then say the schools should be on the hook for some of the money, not the lenders.
And NONE of that applies to the monies the students spent on "living expenses," because those expenses would have had to be borne whether the person was a student in law school or a McDonald's fry cook working next to the law school.
Living expenses will never be forgiven, and never should be. Tuition probably won't be either, but if the schools were committing fraud, they'll be the ones to pay for it.
If not, it ain't gonna happen.
Many of these grads are hoping for a pass not because they "want fairness" or "want justice," but because they want to start over with a clean slate.
You don't get that in life when you had a part in the creation of the problem, even if it was a relatively small part.
10:22 - How can law students not understand that if they borrow $40k per year for three years, then they'll end up owing at least $120k after three years?ReplyDelete
How did the lender play a part in tricking them about that?
If there's some kind of usury or fraud in the terms, rising interest rates buried in the contract, etc. then that's one thing. But saying the principal should be forgiven--nope.
I got the home loan in 2006. It becomes variable shortly which is why I have not refinanced to a lower rate. My point is only that 8% isn't an astronomical rate, especially compared to say credit cards
Look at the student loan debtors acting like they care about the scam because they're concerned about the taxpayers!ReplyDelete
Are you all okay with changing the terms for future borrowers only? You can't change the rules retroactively--that would be more unfair than shouldering the borrowers, ignorant and/or stupid as they were to borrow as much as they did.
Our bankruptcy system allows people to have a "fresh start with a clean slate" every day, so you're 100% wrong on that point. Making student debt dischargeable like almost all other debt would serve additional purposes, such as highlighting the low expected return of garbage law school degrees, such as Cooley's (and probably shuttering them). What lender in its right mind would lend $10,000 in unsecured debt to a kid for Cooley's (or Duquense or NESL et al.) tuition (let alone $200,000 for tuition+living expenses).
I graduated from Harvard in 2006, and in my final year, I took the full loan amount out for a couple of reasons:ReplyDelete
- I was applying for clerkships, and I needed to be able to cover the cost of last-minute airfare to various cities across the country when judges called me for interviews.
- I intended to hold my offer from my summer associate firm open during my (intended) clerkship, with the objective of ultimately declining if I got an offer from a firm that I preferred. This meant that they were not going to pay my bar/Barbri expenses (until I accepted), so I needed to be able to pay those expenses out of pocket, with the plan of eventually seeking reimbursement from the firm that I went to.
- Similarly, I needed money to relocate cross-country post-graduation (something that my 2L firm would have covered if I'd accepted their offer, which I did not want to do.)
- I lived in the nicest dorm on campus.
- I knew I'd be able to pay the loans down quickly once I finished my clerkship and started biglaw.
Taking out the full extent of the loans authorized by HLS allowed me to do all of these things without financial stress - without stress, because it was never in question that I WOULD have a job that would amply pay back my loans (even if I didn't like it and wanted to leave - ah, biglaw).
Typing this out makes me realize why my experience could be regarded as a "legal one percenter" experience (both because of the school from which I graduated, AND because of the year in which I graduated). It makes me think that the commenters who say that schools overestimate cost of living to allow students to cover themselves for twelve months if necessary are probably right. And it makes me angry that things have changed so much that it feels like "flaunting privilege," rather than describing a very common experience, even to describe this. When I summered (in the Bay Area), I definitely knew many people from Hastings, USF, Santa Clara, etc. who had very similar experiences to me. To be fair, they were in the top quarter or third of their class (as was I, but they HAD to be), or top half with some sort of connection or IP-desirable background. Now that's unheard of - I'm being told by students from these schools that even non-biglaw employers are telling them, "Top five percent or bust." Very upsetting.
Boy, Jack Marshall is a Total Dick.ReplyDelete
Debt to the government is treated differently when the government has paid you money.
People need to stop bashing 8:49. He is right. Most of us (not all) here are bums, whether we have debt or not, and whether we are employed or not. Most of us here either are out of work or work very hard for very little money. We have no job security and, in many cases, no benefits. Whether we went to LS straight out of undergrad with a liberal arts degree or if we had a few years experience in STEM and then decided to go to LS, most of us are failures.ReplyDelete
Now, what we need to do is look at the people that did not make excuses, the people that didn’t complain about “fair.” I will tell you that such people exist. In many instances, these people have no education, and in some instances, surprisingly, they were unemployed for most of their lives. Yet via tenacity, hard work, grit, and good old fashioned common sense and intelligence, these people are living the American dream. They figured out the elusive mystery of what is required to succeed in America. They figured out how not be bums, and how not to suffer the social indignation associated with un/under-employment.
Now some of you may want to know what constitutes this “elusive mystery.” Well, I can’t exactly tell you the precise answer. However, I can show you the path:
Now, many of these fine folk about share 8:49’s views (I am serious). When I speak to them (I know many), they tell me I need to get off my lazy ass and make something happen for myself. One of them likes to say (again, I am serious): “Look at me, I didn’t have a job until I was 25. I just partied and hung out, but I cleaned up my act. I decided to go to Community College for two years, and I busted my ass to pass the cop test and get through the academy. I am not a millionaire, but I am making 150k a year with bennies. A lot of you college kids have a sense of entitlement.” This gentleman also told me that taxes were TOO HIGH, but he also told me that unions ARE necessary.
We should learn from these people, and stop blaming people for our mistakes. I take heart knowing that even if we (highly educated professionals) remained fucked for life because of our lazy and entitled ways, the rest of the population will adopt the tenacity, work ethic, and STRATEGY of the individuals I listed above (and other similarly situated individuals). Once this happens, I am sure that the nation’s finances will be restored to proper order.
After all, in this country money talks and bullshit walks. We all want to make money, and we will all emulate those that manage to make it.
Now get your asses out there and vote for people that get your asses paid. Don’t be lazy, just vote. Its all it takes…
In other words..."Get a Government Job!"ReplyDelete
What sucks about the police officer salaries is that crime is so low that there's really little risk to being a cop on Long Island.ReplyDelete
What do Detroit cops make?
On Howard Stern, I heard cops get blowjobs from women trying to avoid speeding tickets too.ReplyDelete
I have to say I'm of the same opinion as @10:16 regarding the overly aggressive and vulgar comments.ReplyDelete
I don't believe these people are attempting to have a real discussion, but are instead just engaging in backdoor vandalism.
The only relief available is to get on IBR and try and rebuild a shattered life around that.ReplyDelete
And yes, student loan debt and un or underemployment is absolutely a deterrent to marriage or a strong incentive for a marriage to break apart and I sympathize with the commenter above that was honest enough to share that.
10:12AM comments often, and sounds young and is an industry shill in the making is my guess.
The way most of the commenters here whine, they'd never make it through the police academy.ReplyDelete
Unlike law school, police academies still weed out the weak.
It's not as easy to get a cop job (a decent paying, full time one) than you think. They're coveted by a lot of people and there are many thousands of applicants for, at most, a rolling list of a few hundred jobs that gets re-made every year or two.
But if you get in, and graduate, you're golden.
10:56 here @ 11:01. See, this is the point you miss. This is what 8:49 is talking about.ReplyDelete
It does not matter that Nassau cops make vastly more than Detroit cops who are in a much more dangerous city. In fact, it does not matter that they make more than peditricians and in some instances neurosurgeons (there are a couple of 600K plus salaries there).
Like 8:49 says, people that complain are bums. People that do stuff are winners. If you get together with a group of people and vote for the right politiicians at the right place, you will get what you want and you will not be a bum.
If you do not do that, then given the fact that i) we are in a global economy, ii) we in-source immense amounts of cheap and illegal labor, iii) mass inflation is happening as we speak, and iv) education has gone up in prce a few hundred percent, you will probably be a bum. (Even if you do not go into debt, those circumstances will exist anywhere you go, i.e. you will have tom deal with i-iii and you will have to compete with people that are 250k in non-dischargeable debt).
I say stop being bums and start voting. Start voting to get the money. That is all it takes. Who do you want to be? The bum with a slave wage job, a STEM degree, and a JD, or the tenacious, hard working, intelligent, and uneducated cop who is making 150k and will retire at 45? I vote for the latter.
So, you have to emulate what the winners do. As 10:56 said, there is no difference between a Detroit cop and a Nassau Cop, other than the fact that the Nassau cops unionized in a rich area where they vote for people to give them money. Get the money.
HAHAHAHA! Its hard? No sir, it is not hard. That is what the politicians say to get the votes of these people. Every REAL bum I know from high shcool has that job. And the only reason most people on this board did not go down that avenue is that we were brainwashed since birth to believe white collar professionalism is the way to go.
Smoke pot, no HS diploma, no job until mid twenites? Supported by the state until then too? No problem. Just vote for X or Y and get paid.
I know a guy with A Master's in Engineering, 8 years military experience, and a perfect score on th test that did not get the job because he had "pysch" reasons.
I know another kid who would physically abuse his girlfriend, never held a job until he was 25, no high school diploma, etc. He is now on the job getting paid. He did not seem to have any problems getting the job, pych or otherwise.
These guys figured out the magic formula in America: there is no right or wrong. There is only power, and power means votes and money. They do not have the money (yet), but they have the votes, so they get paid.
Get the votes to get paid. Don't be weak and foolish.
Many commenters have keenly observed that Chapter 7 bankruptcy provides a fresh start for debtors, not a head start. Allowing student loans to be discharged would give reckless student loan debts an unfair head start. Congress will keep the non-dischargeable protections over student loans.ReplyDelete
@ 11:10 - mass inflation is happening as we speak? really? i don't think so.ReplyDelete
1135 is correct.ReplyDelete
The student loan debtor still has the full value of the product that they purchased and may profit from it in the future.
As such, they will not get refunded the money they paid to get it. Nor should they.
I wonder if anyone in Kensico Cemetery heard Ms. Rand's bones rattling as they turned over in shame when her work was quoted by one of the student loan bailout failures here?ReplyDelete
Not quite sure why students cannot figure out how much they need to live on, especially after the first year. It would be clear then if the suggested amount was too much. Then they could borrow less.ReplyDelete
I took out the max for my 1L year last year and am living off of it now. Couldn't find a paying job for the summer and I still get to live better than I did before school, so I can't complain. I have every intention of paying my loans back after I graduate, but if I can't get a good enough job then I think the loans should be forgiven. My school claimed 90% employment and an average salary of over $60,000. The way I look at it, if I can't get a job making $60,000 after 3 more years of inflation, I shouldn't have to pay for their services. Yeah, the school got their money up front, but there's nothing I can do about that so I'm sorry, but it's on my Uncle Sam then. But I hope I can pay it off and quick.ReplyDelete
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that we now have 115,000 janitors, 83,000 bartenders, 323,000 restaurant servers, and 80,000 heavy-duty truck drivers with bachelor’s degrees -- a number exceeding that of uniformed personnel in the U.S. Army."
Nothing in there about forgiving the student loan debt.ReplyDelete
Nor should there be.
Nor will there be.
But student loans were dischargeable in the not so distant past. I think if Congress had known how much debt would be incurred by students, they might have placed a cap on borrowing or put in some other protection for the taxpayer.ReplyDelete
Also, it wasn't as if a lot of law students were defaulting, if you defaulted you got burned by C&F so people paid.
There is misrepresentation of employment statistics.
A good commentary: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145179563/do-law-schools-cook-their-employment-numbers.
If you are not a fan of NPR there are more sources out there.
I am not a person that thinks that student loans should be forgiven, but I think that there should be truthful representation of employment statistics so an educated decision can be made before the debt is taken on.
Seems like there is a troll lurking in the forums there is some crazy crap on here....
If the government is ultimately being harmed by the explosion of loans and defaults and the schools are putting out fraudulent numbers, then why isn't the government going after the schools?ReplyDelete
You're wrong again. Discharging student debt would give some people in very difficult circumstances a mild amount of breathing room. They'd be getting no leg up; they'd just have a lighter jackboot on their chests.
Now I'd agree with you to the extent you suggest that in the future, the government should get out of the law student loan business altogether. But I suspect that you are a shill for one of the garbage law schools (probably Cooley), so you're probably not going to take that position.
I'm sure many students would be more than happy to have their JD revoked in return for some measure of debt relief, not necessarily even total bankruptcy discharge.
It is also a joke to suggest they have the "full value of the product" when for many grads the value of that product is actually negative. Many JD holders actually have to leave it out to get non-legal jobs.
I have to say I'm of the same opinion as @10:16 regarding the overly aggressive and vulgar comments.
I don't believe these people are attempting to have a real discussion, but are instead just engaging in backdoor vandalism.
Sht the hell f up you fat emo redneck.
True. It is the value of the product that is in question.ReplyDelete
If you pay for something, you get more of it-- no surprise there. So, the government has paid for more lawyers (on your dime, taxpayers!) by guaranteeing loans, then guess what? We've got lots more lawyers, more law schools and much higher tuition. Of course, I suggest that the obvious solution is for the government to get out of the student loan business because it's using taxpayer money to get three things we don't need more of. I know there are readers out there who'll argue that this isn't the right solution, but it sure seems to be a good one. After all, what benefits are there for letting the government so grossly distort the market? Perhaps a few more minority JDs or JDs from poorer backgrounds, but if they're lumbered by debt and unable to find work, how is this a good thing? Or if it is still, somehow, a good thing, is it worth the cost to everyone else?ReplyDelete
More Law School Dean antics come to light, this time from GW:ReplyDelete
"The memo also lays bare that [GW Law Dean] Berman’s Pathways program is nothing more than a bald attempt to game the employment statistics in a way that makes it look good for U.S. News. Nothing more."
I borrowed $15k a year (late 1990s) to live in a small studio with tiny sink and stove on the wall. I also borrowed additional $20k or so a year for tuition.ReplyDelete
Don't tell me I "lived the high life." Rent was about $700 a month for around 200 sq ft., in Chicago. My gf wouldn't even spend the night there.
And I still owe over $150k. Living the dream.
I am a non-law person and I went to that law school transparency site. I looked at the job placement data for a few of the lowest-end places... Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, and so on. Most of them have the same info on their websites. How can you say they're scamming you? It is abundantly clear from their information that their graduates are struggling, to put it mildly. Cooley's goes back a couple of years and they've been providing the same information since then.ReplyDelete
Seriously, looking at the job placement data from Cooley I'd never go anywhere near the place. And then they proceed to claim they're the second best law school in the country??? How stupid do you have to be to get fooled by them? I think a lot of you people thought you'd be one of the lucky ones, and then when you weren't claimed you had no idea and now want to sue them to get your money back. Typical sleazeball lawyer behavior. Does society really need such people as lawyers?
Just face it, you gambled and lost. Yes it sucks, but no you weren't scammed. Just move on, get a job (yes, you can, even with your JD), and hope you can pay off your debt soon.
The Berman memo is a jaw dropper. Combined with the O'Brien salary it's a day that crystallizes the extraordinarily bad stuff going on.ReplyDelete
Great idea, Law Prof, to use the cost of living as a basis for evaluating median salaries! Which reminds me, estimated cost by GWU of just room and board is $18,900 for nine months--or $25,200 for a year. So at $15/hour, 35 hours a week for 52 weeks (total $27,300), these folks clearly can't pay state and federal taxes, social security and medicare, and still have enough left just to eat and sleep. As for health insurance ($2,600), transportation ($2,930), or any other personal expenses ($4,270) for that Pathways year, forget about it.
At $10/hour ($18,200 for the year), they can't even pay room and board. And what happens to their loans under either scenario? I'm absolutely jaw-dropped at the callousness of this. Urban dictionary on PaulBermanize?
I wasn't gullible enough to get suckered by Cooley, but Cooley's "2011 Official Guide" says, and it's President says in other sources, that "Cooley’s reported employment rate was 78.8%." Cooley's President has also said, in a discussion about the value of law degrees, that the national unemployment rate for lawyers was 1.5% only.
Those numbers are howlingly false and misleading, but I knew that applying for schools only because I knew some Biglaw associates and Federal Clerks, not because that information is easily obtained (though I'll toss a caveat out there; I met a couple of Cooley students who were ignorant mouthbreathing right wing retards, which would have been an excellent clue about the quality of the school had I lacked my personal resources).
Almost everybody on this blog went before transparency at schools improved. You have no idea what school advertisements looked like before. You're looking at this through the wholly wrong lens.
LawProf can post and post. Problem here is that nobody in a position of power cares that thousands and thousands of people were suckered by the law school scam. It affects older people who once had jobs. Because employment figures for more experienced lawyers are not posted, no one knows the extent of unemployment among experienced lawyers. However, if 45,000 people a year graduate from law school and only 750,000 people are employed as lawyers, that is not even 20 years of lawyer jobs. The surplus of people is mostly (not all but mostly) unemployed and underemployed.ReplyDelete
Just do the math- number of law school grads since 1970 and number of jobs. What percentage of law school grads are working as lawyers. Clearly some people will retire and some will go into business. The problem is the rest are people who want to work and cannot find work. It has got to be that at least half of all law school grads are in that position. When you take out solos, the number is closer to one third of grads employed as lawyers. The numbers likely drop drastically the older one gets. In other words, you have a 50% chance of using your law degree at age 30 but only a 15% chance of using it at age 62. Bring on the numbers, ABA. If this degree only buys most people work for a few years, we ought to know that.ReplyDelete
I think Congress ought to provide free retraining credits for people suckered by the law school scam who still have debt and want to try another career. That means subsidies towards being a teacher or a dentist or any other type of job. This really is a scam. The statistics were so bad and so hidden from public view for so long. It should not be forgiveness of debt alone, but moving the surplus lawyers to another line of work if they want forgiveness of their debt.ReplyDelete
Look, its real simple. People on this blog are suffering because they went to school.ReplyDelete
At a bare minimum, the most retarded Cooley graduate has more motivation than at least 90% of the people that I know riding the blue collar municipal gravy train. They are also either of equal or above intelligence than the same set of people.
People in places like NYC, LA, Boston, etc. are being raped, absolutely raped in taxes. They are being raped because said blue collar people (bus drivers, cops, janitors, firemen, court officers, etc.) have banded together, and they FORCE the politicians to get them paid. I do not see any success in the major metropolitans (Wisconsin does not count) at stopping this from happen. The parasitism exhibited by these people, many of whom are truly lazy, unmotivated bums makes any other form of parasitism in this country, with the exception of what the banks did with the bail outs, look like charity.
Yet, nothing happens to these people. And yet, here most of you poor bastards are suffering not because you are criminals, not because you did drugs, and not even because you lacked motivation (in comparison to the municipal, 6-figure parasites I have seen).
You are suffering because you tried to improve yourselves in a very naïve way. You believed something that has been held for gospel in America for the last 50 years: the path to a decent life is education.
I do not believe the people that are fiscal conservatives that say they are being hard on you because you took money and are not paying it back. I do not believe them because whether you took money or not, the people who benefited from the scam are still able to steal from the public trough. If they were concerned about money being stolen from them, they would stop the thieves FIRST. AFTER they stop the thieves, then they should punish the negligent and naïve students. I also do not believe them because of what I said above: there are far, far bigger parasites than some stupid kid who believe the BS his/her teachers fed him/her since birth.
No, this is about malice. People like it for some reason that highly motivated people are getting harmed. This makes no other sense to me, fiscally or morally.
Consequently, I strongly recommend that the people here, and the people elsewhere use the magic formula: vote. If you vote, you will be the abusers not the abused because in America there is no middle road anymore.
This type of grift is everywhere.ReplyDelete
Check out this list, which is the public colleges and universities with the worst graduation rates.
What's really striking is the percentage of students going to these schools who are getting Pell Grants.
#1 on the list (i.e. the worst) was Southern University of New Orleans. Over 3/4 of the students there are getting outright gifts of federal aid in the form of Pell Grants. All well and good to help the poor go to college, right?
Now look at their graduation rate: 4%.
That's not a typo. FOUR percent. 96% do not graduate. Enrollment is 2,500, so basically we can expect 100 of them to graduate. The others, we wasted Pell Grants, at $5,500 a pop in federal aid. Down the toilet.
Then I thought, it's a lot more than that that is wasted. The place should just shut down. Professors, staff, anyone who is getting paid at that place is part of a failure so systemic and a waste of money so beyond the pale as to be basically just a giant leech on the country.
This can't continue, can it? For how long?
I also noticed that Southern's tuition and fees are about $3,900.ReplyDelete
So if you graduated high school, and qualify for a Pell Grant, as long as you just made enough appearances to stay enrolled, you wouldn't have to pass a single class right?
You just take your $5,500 from the government, go down to the bursar's office, pay the $3,900, and get a rebate of $1,600. Don't buy books. Don't have to lift a pencil. You just made a cool $1,600 bonus. You wouldn't even quit your night shift job at the loading dock.
Here's the scarier part. The acceptance rate is 48%. Who is so bad that they are getting denied from a school where only 4% of the students manage to graduate?
I am beginning to wonder if the powers that be don't have World War 3 in the offing.ReplyDelete
Why worry about having draft if you can simply offer loan forgiveness in exchange for the opportunity to die in some far off land.
Wow. Over in the privileged, idiotic empire of Prawfs, Howard Wasserman posits (in the comments) that the privilege of receiving student loans may actually create an obligation to serve indigent clients for a period of time. Now I'm actually a (fully employed, benefits-receiving) public interest lawyer who works exclusively with indigent clients. But I've never heard a more idiotic concept in my life.ReplyDelete
Wasserman's idiotic comment: "Could student loans carry with them some sort of obligation to work a job serving low-income and needy clients for some period of time (which, btw and not to beat a dead horse, sounds a lot like residency)? It would be very expensive, to be sure. And it creates a caste system--those who can afford to pay their own way don't have the same obligation. But is that one answer to the either-or?"
It doesn't look like Wasserman ever bothered to work a job serving indigent clients himself (or, really, to serve any other kind of clients, beyond a year as a junior associate at a law firm), from his resume: http://law.fiu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WassermanCV.pdfReplyDelete
And most of his esteemed "public service" as a professor (listed on his resume) appears to consist of signing onto other people's amicus briefs. LOL forever.
Some things never change:ReplyDelete
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. Matthew 23:4 (KJV)
I was in GW's fin aid office a few weeks ago and saw (next to the glossy marketing magazines) pamphlets on IBR.
IBR is now an official selling point of law schools, used to assuage 0Ls and parents of the graduates' likely financial ruin.
Paul Bermanize .... I like the sound of thatReplyDelete
I'm a middle-aged lawyer, not a recent graduate. I find the decision by GWU Dean Paul Schiff Berman to cut promised P2P stipends from a poverty wage ($15/hr) to a sub-poverty wage ($10) breathtakingly unethical. One silver lining for the students--it might also constitute actionable breach of contract, but one would have to read the fine print on the commitment letter that they signed. In a decent world, Schiff Berman would be censured by the GWU faculty, (I know, fat chance) forced to resign, and be required to make up the difference out of his own well-padded pocket.ReplyDelete
@6:36 & 6:44PM: In some ways, this is actually already in the making with Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). The debt loads themselves are going to have graduates clamoring for non-profit/gov't work for 10 years to lose the shackles.ReplyDelete
When you consider the 10 additional years of payments required under regular IBR (10 years for public service work, 20 years for private sector) an factor in the tax treatment (forgiven loans are not taxable under PSLF, taxable for standard IBR), it is easy to see students hoping upon hope to land in a non-profit or gov't gig for 10 years to have the loan forgiven.
Maybe it is a good thing socially, etc. (I believe that is the underlying concept of PSLF, the misguided concept of the public sector losing "the best and the brightest" to Wall Street consulting, etc.), but economically, it is terrifying.
Also, didn't NY just add 50 hours of pro bono service as a bar requirement?
To the people who keep saying vote, what the hell does that mean? As far as I can see, there isn't a single politician who supports my interests as a student.ReplyDelete
1:14. Ron Paul would like to prevent you from becoming a slave to the federal government through federally-funded student loans. Isn't that in your interest?ReplyDelete
Ron Paul would like to get rid of public education altogether, certainly not in anyone's interest. Furthermore, he doesn't support woman's right to choose. Come back with a real candidate and not a wack job.ReplyDelete
Regarding the above comment about the draft: That's preposterous.ReplyDelete
Out of my entering law school class of about 250 people, there were maybe 5 that were fit enough to enlist. Let's hope those 5 weren't criminals, druggies, gay, female, or craven.
Per ATL comments section Berman has rescinded the pay cut.ReplyDelete
One can only hope - for Dean Berman's sake - that GW plummets in the rankings so his salary can go from $400K to $800 - apparently the going rate for crappy law schools (see: New England Law's dean salary)Delete
"Furthermore, he doesn't support woman's right to choose."ReplyDelete
This is the problem with this country. A candidate may not "support a woman's right to choose" an abortion but he may be agreeable on many other topics.....like how to fix the student loan mess, solve social security, and/or question some of our foreign policy actions....you know, super important things. While a woman's right to choose is important, I am not sure it outweighs the other topics mentioned. Furthermore, even if he does "not support a woman's right to choose" an abortion, we all know that the separation of powers prohibits most of what he can do about it.
In the shortest terms, try to vote for a candidate by looking at the big picture rather than NOT voting for the candidate because of a small one. That way, we can stop encouraging these idiots from appealing to their base while ignoring the larger systemic problems impacting us all.
Ron Paul may be a rambling old man, but at least he is consistent and does not give bullshit pandering answers like Romney and Obama.
I'd rather be dirt-poor and struggling to get by than forced to carry a pregnancy to term against my will. Maybe you should look at the bigger picture. My humanity is more imporant to me than being comfortable financially.ReplyDelete
Oh calm the fuck down. Try telling that to someone with no job and high student loan debt and/or someone who does not know how they are going to pay their bills. Before we blow this whole discussion out of proportion and start a crusade try LISTENING to what is being said. Social security, education, health care, impact us ALL. Abortions and the "right to choose" impact those who are considering abortion. In other words, a small segment of the population.
"I'd rather be dirt-poor and struggling to get by than forced to carry a pregnancy to term against my will."
This is how YOU feel. Does not mean we all feel that way. I cannot get pregnant so the statement does not apply to me. Furthermore, I would never want to be dirt-poor. Again, try to see past yourself and look at the bigger picture.
There is an institutional problem here: no one can reasonably expect this dean, who is paid a phenomenal salary by his school, to stab his school in the back by announcing to each incoming class that two-thirds of them should drop out immediately, and that many (perhaps most) of the rest must resign themselves to accepting whatever jobs they can three years down the road, and that only a fraction of these lucky employed will be able to comfortably service their debt or come out ahead on their investment.ReplyDelete
We can say that that would be the right thing to do, but, really, can we expect that? It's just a matter of human nature to accommodate oneself to circumstance-- particularly a happy, comfortable circumstance. Couple human nature to a system that rewards it for gulling the public, and you'll get gulling of the public.
6:52 - shut up, you misogynist fool. Yes, you obviously cannot get pregnant, or you would understand why the right to control one's body and not have an unwelcome intruder forced to remain there for nine months is far, far, FAR more important than your inability to pay your loans or get a job, because YOU did not bother to do well enough in school throughout to secure a better outcome for yourself.ReplyDelete
Abortions and the "right to choose" impact every. single. woman. in this country of child-bearing age - i.e., a far greater number of people than the subset of not-the-highest-achieving law students who can't get jobs. So, as you put it, try to see past yourself and look at the bigger picture. Asshole.
Also @ 6:52 - "someone with no job and a high student loan debt" = a small segment of the population. A demographic that I, as an employed female attorney, will have absolutely no reason to give a flying f*ck about if I continue to hear such displays of privileged misogyny from the male members thereof.ReplyDelete
Feel sorry for the guy stuck with you.
A person is a misogynist because they think there is more than one reason why a candidate should be chosen in a day and age where unemployment and debt is high, jobs are scarce, the middle class is becoming extinct, and this Republic is FADING?
Get over yourself. Get some perspective. Lighten up. Get a life.
11:30 - a person is not a misogynist because they are not a single-issue voter. They are a misogynist when they:ReplyDelete
- Tell a woman who stated that she would rather be dirt poor than endure forced pregnancy to "calm the fuck down."
- Stated that the "right to choose" impacts only a small segment of the population, which is bullshit. It is relevant to every woman and girl who is or will be of childbearing age and is fertile, and, for that matter, their male partners - a massive segment of the population that far exceeds the number of law school graduates with high-interest loans who are unemployed. (Not that numbers are the most important thing, but the misogynist in question claimed that abortion didn't affect many people as a way of claiming that it was not important.)
- Rubs in his inability to get pregnant as, essentially, a reason that he didn't find the right to choose to be all that important.
- And finally, patronizingly, admonishes the woman in question to "try to see past [herself] and look at the bigger picture."
It was the tone and particular comments in that post, not the idea that the writer in question would support a non-pro-choice candidate, that render the author a misogynist. And my comment at 11:12 was also intended to reference the numerous displays of misogyny that have occurred over the lifetime of this blog from other male commenters who are bitter, sexist, and unemployed. Can't help but engage in a bit of schadenfreude at the last vis-a-vis commenters who are blatantly sexist.
I could not and would not support Ron Paul and I am pro-choice. I also think you are raising idiotically irrelevant points here. This is a forum about the legal profession and the conduct of law schools - it is not a forum on women's rights or the right to choose. You decided that your personal obsession with this issue (and I normally have to point this out to "right-to-lifers") made it somehow desperately and totally relevant to the issue at hand. It is not!
Now you may not have like the tone of the poster at 6:52 - but he did in fact have a more valid point than you did or do - you are turning the debate towards an issue that you may regard as of central relevance in your life - but that has little to do with the subject at hand. I should point out that it would go down particularly poorly in court.
If you want to post on pro-choice topics, why not find a pro-life blog or forum and post your views there - they would (a) be relevant to the topic at hand and (b) they might help change people's views. Here you are tediously harping on off-topic-irrelevancies and create the serious risk that the entire blog turns into a forum on abortion, women's rights, Obama's birth certificate, Romney's Mormonism, etc. etc.
But wait, didn't you call the poster names and ask him/her to see past themselves? When they respond in kind, they are labeled a misogynist...seems like a double standard.
Are you a member of the liberal community?
This is a blog about law school "careers" predatory debt and the law school scam in general. You are turning it into a crusade about abortion. Just because someone uses a "tone" does not make them a misogynist. Your tone was about the same.
@6:52 Didn't see your response until today, just got back here.ReplyDelete
Why should I care about issues that affect you? You certainly don't care about issues that affect me. And, as a woman in her twenties, I haven't met a single woman my age who hasn't considered an abortion during a moment of a pregnancy scare. Maybe it's just my social group, but it's a big issue for modern women.
My vote is mine. I'm not interested in voting for something to please other interest groups like student loan debtors unless they'll support my interests too. You talk about seeing past one's own interest, why can't you do the same? Why can't we all get together and support progressive values? Until that happens, you can guarantee no one is going to feel sorry for you for borrowing more than you can pay back.
The above was from the former 6:40, June 20ReplyDelete
Then go post on blogs pertaining to abortion issues. Voting (or not voting) for one candidate because of one issue is ludicrous-especially when there are so many other issues. Abortion is an emotional issue-got it. Whether you care or not is largely irrelevant but it does reveal another problem in this country: people will set aside the larger issues for a smaller sub-issue that they are passionate about, much to the detriment of the larger picture. This is a big problem. This is why you see vote pandering to certain groups while the larger problems (unemployment) go unaddressed.
The problem is we cannot talk about some of these issues in this country because people (like a few of the female posters above) start calling people misogynists or labeling them in other ways. As a result, people remain silent and there is no discussion. Example: where do you get that I borrowed too much for school? Where did I say this? You do not know me nor do you know my situation. The higher ed scam, predatory student debt, and the law school scam impact a ton of people.
If abortion is so important to you, go post on some OTHER blog re that topic.
That abortion is an issue for you every BY NOW IS REALLY FAMILIAR WITH that it is the only issue you seem capable of discussing is why everyone you know rolls their eyes when you come into the room. That you cannot even remotely understand the reason you annoyed people is you failing not theirs.ReplyDelete
To quote Freud - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Not everything is about abortion rights - not go find a monomaniacal forum just for you
Wow. Just trying to respond to the constant demands to "vote" by explaining why there wasn't a candidate who I'd feel comfortable voting for. This wasn't a discussion about abortion and I'm sorry tyou missed the point. The point is that plenty of student debtors are women, so education costs are not the only issue in our lives. You would think the rest of you guys would try to band together with us and we could all support each other rather than tearing things apart into factions. But if you're not comfortable with that, don't be surprised that things don't change.ReplyDelete
Then say that. This is the first time you made that point. You were unclear in your writing. Don't interject about a woman's right to choose (sub-issue) on a blog that does not emphasize the topic then in turn throw a fit and name-call when people do not agree with you. You made it a discussion about abortion and then harped on the subject when so many were trying to EXPLAIN to you about larger issues impacting all. You are right, with your attitude, things will not change
A hint, not all the anonymous comments are the same person. I never threw a fit, name called, or "interjected a sub-issue" into a blog. I just explained why Ron Paul didn't do it for me. If you misread or confused other comments with mine, that's your own problem. Furthermore, the only person trying to make this all about abortion is you. Really, just trying to explain why one candidate might not satisfy all student debtors. Unlike some, I'm not a one-issue candidate. I try to look for someone who is progressive on all the issues. I only person getting bent out of shape here is you. And it's not conducive to change.ReplyDelete
Nie Wire reference.ReplyDelete
Multiple women were commenting in response to the abortion argument. Looks like one or more of the men assumed that we're all the same person.ReplyDelete
No, I knew it was multiple women. I just did not have the patience to differentiate in my postings. You all were making the same tired old arguments and you all kinda sounded the same to me.ReplyDelete
I'm confused. Where did someone try to argue in favor of the pro-choice position? I certainly didn't and didn't see anyone else do so either? Just explaining not everyone is going to vote in your interest. Some of us have multiple concerns to worry about in addition to student loans. I didn't know that was an old argument, but if it is, then it's a damn good one. And if you can't get that, then it's no wonder you can't find work as a lawyer.ReplyDelete
Bravo. A personal attack. A tired old argument. Heard it a million times.
Your writing is less than clear. Not sure who you are trying to address.
Ah. I'm sure you can understand, then, why employers just don't have the patience to differentiate between you and other candidates. You are all making the same tired old pitch for employment and you kinda sound the same to the hiring attorneys. Enjoy unemployment.
I never said I was unemployed. Assume much ya angry shrew? I hope your looks are much better than your lawyer skills because your lawyering skills are horrible. Your attempt to get in the last word must make you a real joy to be around.ReplyDelete
You never said you were unemployed, but I'm just going with my strong suspicious you are (particularly as you didn't explicitly assert that you had a job at 2:05). If you are employed, enjoy shitlaw.ReplyDelete
So now if I am employed, it must be in shitlaw and nothing else? No wonder why you are so difficult. You deal in absolutes (black and white thinking) while stereotyping and making generalizations. Bet you have a diagnosis of BPD in your past. Your comments reflect it.ReplyDelete
My wife joked once and said that she feels sorry for men because most women are crazy. I think you fall in this category.
You know nothing about me and your assumptions blind you to the truth. You cannot get out of your own way.
This is just ridiculous. If you have problems with women, take it to a misogynistic blog. We get it, you're obsessed with hating women. Take it elsewhere and stay on topic please.ReplyDelete
This is just ridiculous. If you have BPD, take it to a BPD blog. We get it, you're obsessed and crazy. Take it elsewhere and stay on topic please.ReplyDelete
6:04: still not even an attempt to assert that you actually have a job. You don't.ReplyDelete
Not even an attempt to deny that you are actually crazy. You are sweetie.
1) I do have a job.
2) It is not shitlaw as you so vehemently assumed.
3) I am unsure as to why my employment situation matters so much to you but I can assure you, you are a loser.
This comment thread proves that Jack Marshall is evil to his core. He looks evil too:ReplyDelete
Every modern girl is almost satisfied with these seasonable foakleys available in market because each season they can change their sunglass and also protect their eyes.Sunglasses are the ultimate fashion accessories for glamour and style. Now various fake oakleys provide discount offers for the customers.White frames is one of the hot trends for famine eye wear for every season and its very cool, Oversized white frames provide a good perception.
Do you hаve any viԁeo of that? I'd love to find out more details.ReplyDelete
Also visit my blog ... loans for bad credit
Saved as a favorite, I lіκe your ѕite!ReplyDelete
Look at my page ; 1 month loan
Heу There. I found yοur blog using mѕn.ReplyDelete
This is a very well ωrіtten article. I will makе sure
to boоkmark it and cοme back to reaԁ mоre οf
уour useful infοrmation. Thаnkѕ for the ροst.
I ωill definitely сοmebacκ.
Rеviеw mу blog: losing weight
My website - losing weight