GULC professor Philip Schrag has a forthcoming review of Brian Tamanaha's Failing Law Schools that criticizes Tamanaha for failing to acknowledge that Income-Based Repayment, especially in its new form that will become available to most law students as early as next year, "solves" the problem that law degrees now cost much more than they're worth. (Tamanaha responds here).
In his book Tamanaha presents the case of Sarah, a hypothetical graduate making an entry-level salary of $63,000 (this was NALP's -- needless to say quite inflated -- "median" salary for the class of 2010). Tamanaha points out that if Sarah has $100,000 in law school debt she will be unable to service that debt via the standard ten-year repayment plan, and she will still struggle to do so under the 25-year extended payment option. "In 2007, however," Schrag announces, "the United States Congress solved Sarah's problem," by creating IBR.
The new version of IBR, Pay As You Earn (PAYE), has been fast-tracked via executive order by President Obama, who is displaying either a touchingly naive belief in the investment value of higher education, or a ruthlessly cynical willingness to exploit that belief. PAYE reduces the loan payments graduates must make from 15% of disposal income (defined as income beyond 150% of the federal poverty line) to 10%, and reduces the period of payment prior to debt forgiveness from 25 to 20 years (it remains 10 years for those who qualify for PSLF by working in the non-profit sector).
Schrag argues this program makes law school eminently affordable for graduates making moderate incomes, without regard to their debt levels, and that thus it undermines the central thesis of Failing Law Schools, which is that law schools are failing because they cost too much.
Indeed from the perspective of universities in general and law schools in particular, IBR appears to be the budgetary equivalent of manna from Heaven. Note that, if she remains eligible for IBR, it makes literally no difference whatsoever how much money Sarah borrows as an undergraduate and while in law school: she will make exactly the same total loan payments over the next two decades in any case.
Let's see how this works. Using this handy calculator (which Schrag warmly recommends to prospective law students), we will assume that Sarah gets a $60,000 entry-level job, and that her income will increase by an average of 3% per year over the next 20 years, i.e., she will be making around $108,000 20 years after graduation. If Sarah incurs $100,000 of total educational debt (this assumes all the debt is IBR eligible, which for people who entered college after 2007 it almost certainly will be), she will initially make loan payments of $360 per month, which will rise to $470 after ten years, and be up to $632 when she is making a six-figure income after 20 years in the program. She will make a total of $116,200 in payments over 20 years -- the calculator estimates that this is equivalent to about $65,000 discounted to present value -- which all go toward interest. In fact she will not have paid nearly $30,000 in the interest she owed on her loans, meaning that she will have $128,775 in debt (all the money she borrowed and then some) written off when her loan is forgiven. This debt will be treated as income by the IRS, and she will have to pay the tax on it to the extent that her net worth exceeds the forgiven amount (Or something like that. Consult a tax law professor or better yet a real lawyer to get the gritty details).
Note that $100,000 in total educational debt is a far lower figure than will be incurred by people currently applying to law school. I estimated recently that the average educational debt of members of the class of 2016 who graduate from private law schools and incur educational debt will be around $205,000. How much will Sarah pay if she graduates with $205,000 in IBR-eligible debt? The answer is $116,200. Her payments will be exactly the same -- but after 20 years the government will write off nearly $400,000 ($396,299.07) in unpaid principal and interest (Again, $200,000+ educational loan balances will be typical for people now entering law school by the time they graduate, and $300,000 balances will be far from rare).
Is this a good deal for Sarah? That, as we shall see, is far from clear. What is clear is that it's an unbelievably fantastic deal for law schools. You don't need a Nobel prize in economics to figure out what will happen to the cost of law school if that cost no longer bears any relationship whatsoever to what a significant portion -- indeed quite possibly a majority -- of law graduates actually end up paying for their degrees. (As Matt Leichter recently pointed out, a huge percentage of law graduates going forward are going to be IBR-eligible. He also quotes the rather Zen-like economic aphorism that "debts which can't be repaid, won't be.")
But let's leave behind the world of law school administrators, who are no doubt fantasizing even now about opening taxpayer-subsidized International Environmental Space Law summer programs in Ravenna, and return to Sarah. Does IBR make law school a good idea for her?
Well . . . consider what our hypothetical graduate has been hypothetically bequeathed :
(1) A real job.
(2) A real job that pays $60,000.
(3) A real job that will lead her to make an average of between $60,000 and $108,000 every year for the next 20 years.
That, to put it mildly, constitutes a terrific career outcome for the average current law graduate. How good of an outcome?
Percentage of all 2011 ABA law school graduates who were reported to acquire jobs paying $60,000 or more: 21.4%
Percentage of all 2011 non-T-14 law school graduates who were reported to acquire jobs paying $60,000 or more: 17.6%
How many of these people are going to stay continuously employed as lawyers for the next two decades, while averaging at least COL raises over that time? In other words, how many Sarahs are law schools graduating right now?
There are a whole lot of problems with Schrag's claim that IBR is a good thing for law students (let alone for the public as a whole, which of course is picking up this particular bill), but I'll leave those for another day. Here I'll stick to a much simpler and more fundamental point:
Sarah's real problem is that she's not getting a job, or if she does get a job it's not paying $60,000, or if it does pay $60,000 she's not going to be able to keep it.
Law professors tend to live in a bubble where they imagine that Sarah's hypothetical career path is a typical outcome for people who don't make the big bucks in Big Law. That's why arguments about "affordability" end up assuming a series of can openers, consisting of solid salaries, career stability, and other features that have very little to do with what the large majority of current law graduates can realistically expect to obtain in return for taking out ever-more enormous piles of taxpayer-funded debt that will never be repaid.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Here are some links on IBR if anyone is interested.ReplyDelete
It's shameful that law professors/administrators are touting Gov'mt Cheese as an incentive to go to law school, economics be damned.ReplyDelete
Isn't the point of going to a professional school to better oneselve in a manner that results in them NOT having to rely on WELFARE type programs?
How slimy and clearly self serving.
But, thankfully, consumers are on to it.
When are people going to realize that relying upon government programs always has strings attached. Screw IBR. Didn't anyone ever consider that maybe the law schools should just reduce their tuitions? Of course they have, but that's where their own self interest comes takes precedence. Now you have idiots like this Case Western dean spouting off nonsense to keep the gravy train rolling. I hope he's getting paid off by someone for making such ridiculous statements. His talk of law careers lasting 40-50 years only applies IF you are able to get that first job. If you are not employed as a lawyer within 9-12 months after graduation, you are basically damaged goods since a new bumper crop of bushy-eyed law students is available for the pillaging.Delete
"a ruthlessly cynical willingness to exploit that belief"ReplyDelete
here's the other end of that spectrum
KUDOS to current law Dean Nancy Rappaport (UNLV) for being courageous by sticking to the facts and being honest, in contrast to her counterparts.ReplyDelete
Her post is a must read:
Again, I don't see the honesty. Let her account for the dreadful state of affairs for students at her own toilet of a law school: six-figure debt and very poor prospects in the legal profession.Delete
My numbers nearly mirrored this hypothetical person's numbers until I lost my job:ReplyDelete
72K salary, 100K debt over many years (I only borrowed 75k)
After I lost my job, I had to defer, the years I spent repaying ate up all I paid down. Now I am back to where I was years ago when I began repayment.
The good news:
I received a government job so I qualify for PSLF. Who cares if I had to move to the direct loan program and get a higher interest rate. Who care that the balance is growing exponentially, who cares when I start to repay it. I can control my AGI (the basis for calculating my IBR payment) and put every raise into my retirement account to keep my AGI low(er).
So long as I keep the job (a risk-even a government job) and PSLF is never abolished (another risk). I am in the clear. This is how fucked the system has become and how FUCKED a person can be if they cannot see years into the future.
Does anyone know if this new 10 percent cap only applies to new debt taken out after 2014 (or whenever it goes into effect)? Or does it also apply to existing debt? I.e., are those of us who have been out of school a while and still saddled with massive debt going to be stuck paying 15 percent under IBR, or can we now get the 10 percent cap? Because this gubmint attorney can't afford what they want me to pay under 15 percent, but could scrape together the 10 percent...Delete
If you had any outstanding educational loans as of Oct. 1 2007 (even if you've paid them off now), then you are not eligible for the 10% cap.Delete
Likewise, I was ineligible to deduct the interest on my student loans, which went back to the late 1980s. Rich parents who were paying the full cost of my classmates' degrees, however, could borrow the money against the equity in their mansions and deduct the much lower interest on that.Delete
Our current President was pandering to CURRENT college students when he made the changes. Your loans have to be taken out after a certain date to qualify:
The administration also proposed changes to the income-based repayment program, which allows borrowers to repay on a sliding scale if their payments exceed 15 percent of their discretionary income. The change would lower the qualifying debt-to-discretionary-income ratio to 10 percent. Outstanding loan balances would be forgiven after 20 years, five years earlier than under the current arrangement. Congress previously approved legislation that would let these changes begin in 2014, but President Obama plans to change that start date to 2012.
The changes to income-based repayment would apply only to current students. But administration officials said they hope they will draw more attention to the existing program as well: only about 450,000 borrowers are currently enrolled, although administration officials said many more could benefit.
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/10/26/obama-proposes-changes-student-loan-programs#ixzz2DphfS8Yj
Inside Higher Ed
Ugh, that's what I thought. So unfair. That just really highlights how arbitrary the whole student loan scheme/scam is: people who happened to graduate in different years paying wildly different interest rates, and now wildly different total amounts, too. What a scam!Delete
Thank you for pointing out just how unstable legal careers are. 0Ls need to understand that it the legal job that you got after looking for 8 months after passing the bar is not likely to last long. It rains one day and you lose the job. It takes you a year to get a new legal job. Because they hired you from unemployment, they take advantage of you (you are a temp, not a regular employee like the people they hired from jobs and you sit at a back part of the office, in an inside office when the other lawyers have outside offices). That second job fires you when it rains again. This time it takes you three years to get a legal job. That job is also a temp job and they take advantage of you. That job ends after 8 months. You look and look again and now it is two and a half years later and nothing. In the meantime, you were lucky enough to be able to go back your job at the men's department at Lord & Taylor.ReplyDelete
"The new version of IBR, Pay As You Earn (PAYE), has been fast-tracked via executive order by President Obama"ReplyDelete
What a guy.
IBR is meant to be a last resort, a way to mitigate the damage caused by oversupply; it's not meant to be a reason to pump out more graduates and keep the law school gravy train rolling. This is like urging people to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so they can qualify for FEMA money when sea level rise floods their home. At some point members of congress are going to realize that law school deans are using it as a selling point and are going to shut down or limit the program.ReplyDelete
as a taxpayer, this really pisses me off. i am scammed by law schools and new students who should have known better.ReplyDelete
I simply shake my head at the glib suggestions that law school is great because a graduate (or, in more than a few cases, non-graduate) allegedly can seek discharge of hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that remain after twenty or more years.ReplyDelete
Few people in the general population would expect many graduates of law school to have failed to achieve an income sufficient to support payments on their student loans even after a quarter of a century.
The very cost of law school renders the legal profession more and more aristocratic.
I think things have proceeded beyond even "aristocratic exploitation" - I think we are now in the realm of actual institutional insanity.
Law schools have painted themselves into a hopeless financial corner and are willing to *do* (and *believe*) anything to keep their lucrative lies alive even a little bit longer.
Of course, some of us think that borrowing a lot of money you have neither the intention nor the ability to repay is, well, dishonest. And that advising young people to do this, for your own benefit, is shameful. But I'm old fashioned and, anyway, once you've gotten rid of integrity the rest is easy.ReplyDelete
Then there is the fact that Sarah is gambling her entire future on the assumption that the IRB or PAYE programs will continue to exist in something like their current form for more than twenty years. This is a big gamble since there is absolutely no good public policy reason why the government should subsidize people to obtain degrees which do not enable them to contribute to the economy. Now I realize that to mention "good public policy" and the US government in the same sentence is evidence of delusional thinking but still, the government could sober up some day and if it does Sarah is likely to be screwed. The good professor, of course, got his money up front.
In addition, what the government grants it can -- actually will -- attach strings to. And sooner or later it will condition continued participation in IBR on certain occupational or lifsstyle choices. In fact, it is already doing this with its public interest (read "work for the government") loan forgiveness program. It will get worse. Remember, this is a government that thinks its just fine to require middle school students to take drug tests to join the chess club. Trust me, Sarah, you do not want to live your life until early middle age by the federal government's leave.
These schools don't have integrity. That is why we are in this situation. Honest employment figures decades ago would have prevented this crises.Delete
"some of us think that borrowing a lot of money you have neither the intention nor the ability to repay is, well, dishonest. And that advising young people to do this, for your own benefit, is shameful."Delete
Highly credited. Thank you.
One problem for me is that I have never been prepared to leave my principles at the door. That bodes ill indeed for me in the legal profession, despite the incessant chatter about "ethics" and "justice".Delete
Recently a professor advised me to ask the judge for whom I am working to help me to find work in law. I was stunned: it struck me as altogether inappropriate to ask a judge to compromise herself by interceding—most likely with lawyers who might have to appear before her—on behalf of her intern. The professor assured me that this is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps it is, but I still don't buy that, and I haven't approached the judge for assistance.
Another reason to hate the scam:ReplyDelete
Schools will tout IBR as a solution rather than looking at the fundamental flaw in their product. The public and/or Congress will eventually wake up to the scam and shut down IBR and the other loan forgiveness programs. In turn, those currently in the programs risk getting kicked out if/when IBR is eliminated.
The schools do not give a damn about any of us. They will argue to keep the gravy train rolling regardless of the consequences to its graduates.
Law school deans who are promoting this as the new standard payment have no idea how silly they are being. I briefly read up on IBR. It seems the intent is for unusually poor graduates to avoid repayments that would push them below the poverty line. If this is now standard for most law students, then aren't they saying that average tuition is now way too high as its enough to impoverish most students?ReplyDelete
Of course many can't see this as in their desperation they have latched onto this as the best way to allow them to continue the now-standard law school growth model of continuously jacking up prices faster than inflation.
The dean at my law school touted IBR as a solution for INCOMING students when the topic of outrageous tuition prices was brought up by me.ReplyDelete
This came at the tale-end of a discussion where I was asking for my money back.
Is anybody surprised?ReplyDelete
This is just a symptom of the disease, though. The larger problem is that law schools only real purpose is to benefit law professors. Tuition, textbooks, scheduling, finals, class rankings, and now IBR. Designed or exploited by professors to benefit themselves.
That, and the larger university too. Think about how "cheap" it is to set up a "Samuel L. Bronkowitz School of Law and Catholic Girls in Trouble." Put some books in a library, get the ABA to smile and nod, and viola - huge income stream to the university by taxing the lol skool. ROI is huge, compared to a chemistry department or something else.Delete
I'm not one of those that believe IBR dooms a user for a failed financial future. I'm on it and it's saving my ass. And I understand all the credit implications. I've already bought a new car and had a mortgage (subsequently sold the house) while on IBR. However, I will say that to use IBR as an excuse for the current market abuses law schools are engaging in is disgusting. You shouldn't socialize the costs so that law professors and administrators can continue to be compensated at a level at least 2 to 3 times their value (and sometimes 8 to 10). And those losses also shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer to continue such niceties that the law school atmosphere provides when there are so many more obvious needs that public dollars should be used towards. The defense of the status quo by any serious person is pathetic.ReplyDelete
Why is it that law schools haven't migrated to the whole temp/adjunct model that the rest of higher ed is embracing? Is it fear of prestige loss, which might be reflected in rankings? I just see these law prof salaries as a great area to cut. Obviously, the savings wouldn't be passed on to students. They could be used to pump up administrator pay/benefits, per usual.ReplyDelete
"Why is it that law schools haven't migrated to the whole temp/adjunct model that the rest of higher ed is embracing?"ReplyDelete
Right. The ABA accreditation standards are written so as to ensure that any school that wants to maintain an "acceptable" faculty-student ratio can't use too many adjuncts.Delete
The funny thing is that a law school could have a full-time faculty staffed exclusively by people who have never really practiced law (this is almost literally the case at a lot of elite schools now) and this would be perfectly OK with the ABA, but a school that brings in too many actual practitioners to teach classes is risking its accreditation.
Very few of my professors have practiced law for more than a year or two; some haven't practiced ever.Delete
Meanwhile, the lady who teaches legal writing and research—and works her ass off—doesn't even get the dignity of being called "Professor", despite having a lot more experience as a practitioner than almost anyone else in the law school. She has been on a long series of one-year contracts. Yes, her position comes up for renewal every year even though she has been here for ages.
ABA Standard 405(d) states that "[a] law school shall afford legal writing teachers such security of position and other rights and privileges of faculty membership as may be necessary to (1) attract and retain a faculty that is
well qualified to provide legal writing instruction as required by Standard 302(a)(3), and (2) safeguard academic freedom". Yet Interpretation 405-9 states that this provision "does not preclude the use of short-term contracts for legal writing teachers". Well, "short-term contracts" doesn't sound much like "security of position" to me.
Law Prof practiced for less than a year.Delete
It's interesting to see that so many lawprof's are still in denial as to the actual institutional problems. There will be fewer applicants this year than there were first year seats just a couple of years ago. This isn't by accident or unfair press coverage or bias in Brian Tamanaha's book. It's because the system is broken. Amazingly, instead of working to fix the broken system, so many lawprofs seem intent on defending and promoting the status quo. How long will/can they do this?ReplyDelete
"How long will/can they do this?"Delete
As long as their checks keep clearing.
In a few weeks, my tax rate will increase again. If I add all the taxes I pay throughout the year (e.g., property, sales, payroll, federal, state, city, etc.), I am already paying over 50% of my gross income to the government. Do I take comfort knowing that my money is being used to fund (via, inter alia, IBR) the lavish lifestyles of law professors and deans? I have stopped donating my money to my alma mater. In fact, I called the alumni office and told them to take me off the mailing/email list as I don't want any propaganda from my old law school. I used to donate $500-$1,000 a year to my old school and sure I got to deduct it on my taxes but I realize that money is also being misappropriated. I urge other established lawyers to stop giving money to your old law schools. By giving money to these schools, you are enabling the greedy beast within them. I want schools to starve to closure. Dean Mitchell's NYTimes op-ed piece was a desperate cry. The law schools are hurting. The tide is turning. Do not rest on your laurels. The nail in the coffin has not been hammered in yet.ReplyDelete
Never give a goddamn penny to a law school! Jesus H Christ: $50k and more per student per year, yet they have their grubby hand out? The devils can go to hell.Delete
I think 4:55 sums up IBR quite nicely and particularly how the tax payers are funding the lavish lifestyles of law professors. BTW, I recently received an e-mail containing a video of my law school dean begging for money. You're right - the law schools are hurting. Time for you law school deans and professors to feel some pain for once ... like the rest of us suckers that bought the law school scam based on your lies.Delete
4:45 while I heartily agree with your main sentiments, I find it very difficult to believe it when you say you're paying over 50% of your gross in taxes.Delete
It makes more sense to me to allow bankruptcy than to keep people chained to debt they can't pay for 20 years. Does no one else see what a terrible drain on the convoy this will be?ReplyDelete
The government/law schools WANT you to be a debt slave for life so that when the government attempts to impose a digital currency those that are in debt will fall in line. Get ready to bend over.Delete
While we see BK for student loans as eminently fair, it's political poison.Delete
Most people have paid off some uncomfortably large bills in their lives, so politicians do not want to be seen as advocating for a break for whiny, entitled students.
Keep drinking that IBR Kool Aid you self-interested idiot Schrag.ReplyDelete
The IBR/PSLF thing is of a piece with the increasing emphasis on food stamps as a routine way for the middle class to survive. The plan is to eliminate all remaining traces of a free market, money based economy, and move the US to a third world model where each person's well-being depends on toeing the party line and kissing up to politicians rather than on productive work.
Have you ever heard statistics such as, the average annual income in Ecuador is $4,500, and wondered how anyone can live on that? The answer is that the government provides most of their needs, and they know that if they try to make more money, it will just be taxed away from them. So only those with political connections can have anything beyond a subsistence lifestyle.
"and kissing up to politicians rather than on productive work"Delete
That is the law school survival model *now*.
Check out which party gets the Politburo-like share of political contributions from "higher" education - it ain't the government-distrusting one...
What - it was a 90/10 split. The repubs don't need more than 10% anyway.Delete
The political realilty is that this deal cannot last. Law students need to be aware that the rug will be pulled out from under them when somebody in Congress understands that the Department of Education is giving away billions of dollars to overproduce lawyers. Without some form of underwriting this is a scam all on its own!ReplyDelete
Yep. My State funds per pupil K - 12 at less then $7k a year. This is $90k total. Yet, the government and individuals are funding higher Ed at $50k plus a year? For non-technical degrees? Come on.Delete
If they didn't have IBR, students would just default.Delete
Law Office Computing's comments are well-taken. This is a terrible idea in that it will make the problem worse not better. We need to find a way to give the schools market incentives to produce an appropriate number of graduates.ReplyDelete
They should force the LAW SCHOOLS to do the lending - and then make THEM offer an IBR-type discharge to the students after 10 years. That'd trim enrollment.Delete
Am I the only one wondering whether Philip Schrag has ever had the nickname "Dish"?ReplyDelete
The pigs are starting to defend their criminal behavior. Of course, the bastards are still unable to muster actual evidence and facts to bolster their "case." Apparently, "the best and brightest" cannot make a cogent argument as to why law school truly is a wise investment for students.ReplyDelete
Schrag's response in the comment section of the article shows just that. It basically amounts to "b-b-but eveything else is subsidized too, waaaaaaaaaah stop picking on law school debt, waaaaaaaaaaah"Delete
All the other subsidies actually provide goods and services; law school, at its current cost and graduate employment prospects, provides a glut of people who can neither purchase goods nor provide services.
Au contraire! This subsidy provides PLENTY of goods and services - to law school faculties, that is.Delete
Those 200 law schools must have one AMAZING lobbyist.
Six figure debt affects life in other ways as well, and IBR doesn't change it.ReplyDelete
Get ready kids, there is the "Debt to Income Ratio" which is stated grounds for rejecting an application for credit, and I have received at least three letters with those exact words: One From Bank of America when applying for a credit card, one from Best Buy when applying for store credit, and one from Wells Fargo when applying for credit to purchase a rug.I applied for credit recently and I am awainting a rejection letter which I bet will have the same words (Excessive obligations in relation to income)
The second major problem with such debt is the deterrent to marriage and/or the financial burden such debt can potentially place upon an innocent spouse if assets are accidentally comingled or at least if the loan payments are made out of a joint account. It's a very tricky situation and one article even recommended a prenup. (You can find all this easy enough if you google)
And of course the psychological toll of hopeless debt is devastating, especially after the realization that you have thrown away three valuable years of your life, and that the remainder of your life is pretty much ruined.
You can still find a fine lass if you're indebted.Delete
When hiring faculty, law professors have a simple definition of "qualifications": whatever career path I took.ReplyDelete
In true lawyer like fashion I cut and paste a pertinent quote from above followed by my comments and questions of wisdom as only the great lawland prophet can do: "Sarah's real problem is that she's not getting a job, or if she does get a job it's not paying $60,000, or if it does pay $60,000 she's not going to be able to keep it.".....ReplyDelete
....those words are the kind of words that 0L lemmings need to see BEFORE the sign the dotted line on those law scam...I mean school.. applications and loan agreements....
BUT, now I pose the following question to the would be law lemmings who are unconnected, straight, non WASP and non JEWISH males: What if Sarah had a penis, was not a connected WASP or JEW and was not metro sexual or gay? Are you schlubby unconnected males, white, or even worse, black and straight males even remotely prepared to deal with the very real discrimination against you that exists in most of law?
Law is increasingly becoming a business for connected white and jewish women and their metro sexual or gay male allies/minions. "Sarah" at least has a chance...especially if she is at least remedially hot. Tyrone Hairlip or Joey Bagggodounuts do not have a prayer.
This has been a warning from the great lawland truthsayer, John J. Bungsolphagus The First writing lawland truths to lemmings and devilish lawland power since 2006.
PS: to my unconnected, overweight, unattractive wimmenfolk out there, you might as well forget law too much like the schlubby unconnected males. The devilish powers that be in law, meaning those at the tippy top, meaning baby boomer connected white or jewish males have no use for you either.ReplyDelete
And Sarah, even if you are hot and seemingly willing to facilitate the sexual needs of your devilish boomer boss, do not count on that lasting over a 20 or 30 year career as you age and your looks fade....but then again, you probably were not concerned with that because you likely went to law school to catch a rich lawyer to put you on the stay at home mommy track in the first place.
More uncomfortable truths from the Great John Bungsolaphagus. God bless!
F Sarah. Hey what about Joey Baggodonut and Tyrone Hairlips' problem? Let's talk about the anti unconnected straight schlubby male disrimination that is so prevelant in law's lower/entry levels.ReplyDelete
What if Sarah graduated before GRADPlus loans became available and has private student loans on top of federal loans? IBR + private student loans is more than hard to manage. Why weren't the two comments above deleted by the moderator? And where is the best source of long-term employment data? For those lucky enough to get median firm jobs, what happens when they age out?ReplyDelete