Senator Boxer continues pressure on ABA to reform Forum

[Bill Cosby]

i didn't post the original quote to which you're objecting, i only gave an example when you asked for one re: other sources of funding. however, i don't really understand what you're saying. can you clarify please?

Fair enough.

The elimination of government lending would result in a market were many highly qualified applicants would be unable to live up to their potential due to inability to pay. The lack of lending will result in those candidates either not attending, or attending a worse school because they need to go to whoever can offer a merit scholarship.

[glitter178]

Still doesn't really address my objection, because you're effectively saying people who are already disadvantaged from having less connections should also attend inferior schools (relative to their ability) due to cost.
/quote

i didn't post the original quote to which you're objecting, i only gave an example when you asked for one re: other sources of funding. however, i don't really understand what you're saying. can you clarify please?

The reason you're able to get the merit scholarship is because law school tuition is so wildly inflated that many other saps are playing full tuition (with federally supported loans). So while your source of payment is from merit scholarships, the source of payment from the merit scholarships is the loans. Get rid of the loans, the merit schollies would dry up as well.

i don't necessarily agree with this, for a few reasons. one, merit scholarships actually help people without connections go to schools they might not be able to go to without the scholarships. more importantly, many scholarships are funded by private donors and alums. in the case of my scholarship, for example, i had to agree to be willing to meet with, write a letter to, etc the donor of my scholarship if asked.
so no, not all scholarships are backed by those paying with loans.
also, the socialist-style "eliminate scholarships so there is a level playing field" does not help to nurture the "best and brightest" idea mentioned earlier.
in my case, my merit scholarship has allowed me to go to a much better school than i ever imagined attending, particularly as a first-gen college grad from a very humble background

[BackToTheOldHouse]

i didn't post the original quote to which you're objecting, i only gave an example when you asked for one re: other sources of funding. however, i don't really understand what you're saying. can you clarify please?

Fair enough.

The elimination of government lending would result in a market were many highly qualified applicants would be unable to live up to their potential due to inability to pay. The lack of lending will result in those candidates either not attending, or attending a worse school because they need to go to whoever can offer a merit scholarship.

Word.

[Bill Cosby]

Great idea. Instead of the best and the brightest, we'll have whoever has parents wealthy enough to foot the bill.

This assumes that the only source of funding is either parents or the government. Do you really believe that? If you do, then you are not correct.
The funding for my legal education will come from neither of those sources.

Please, I'd love to hear some of these alternatives. Savings, but that's pretty unrealistic unless people are going to wait until their 40s before attending.

I'm 29 and paying with savings.
There are also private loans available, and there would likely be more private loans available if gov't loans weren't so abundant. The government loans are so cheap and easy to come by that they practically encourage irresponsible, unsustainable lending for the financing of bad investments (see 'housing crisis'); and isn't that what this whole discussion really boils down to? How good/bad of investment is law school? If cutting off the gov't funding would make people look a little closer at the value of legal education, wouldn't that be a good thing? If private loans cause law school to be a bad investment for people who would otherwise be using gov't loans, why is it okay for them to make an un-wise investment with tax dollars?
Btw, your initial statement also implies that there is no cross over between the 2 groups you mention (best & brightest v. people with rich parents). This is obviously not true.

Private loans only exist to the extent they do due to government guarantees. I agree students should spend a lot more time considering their decision to attend law school (or any graduate program that's not medicine/hard science), but eliminating public provision of student loans won't cause that to any significant extent. You're also making some unwarranted assumptions. The interest rates of private loans are significantly higher than on public loans. Investments that make sense at 6% don't necessarily make sense at 10+%.

My statement does not imply no crossover between the two groups.

Also, you may want to learn a bit more about the housing crisis before blaming it on government policy.

[Curry]

So we've decided we aren't calling her "Barb"?

[BackToTheOldHouse]

So we've decided we aren't calling her "Barb"?

I would prefer "Babs."

[bouakedojo]

.

[Capitol A]

My statement does not imply no crossover between the two groups.

Typically, when one makes a statement such as, 'instead of x, y,' it is implied that x and y are different, and possibly mutually exclusive. Hence the word "instead."

Also, you may want to learn a bit more about the housing crisis before blaming it on government policy.

I don't want to derail this thread, but suffice to say, LOL.

Private loans only exist to the extent they do due to government guarantees.

This is a problem. We are speaking about reforms here, and this is something that needs to be reformed. Government guarantees are/were precisely the problem with housing.

[Bill Cosby]

My statement does not imply no crossover between the two groups.

Typically, when one makes a statement such as, 'instead of x, y,' it is implied that x and y are different, and possibly mutually exclusive. Hence the word "instead."

Key word: possibly. You made the unfounded assumption that meant they were.

We'll leave housing policy for a different time.

[EstboundNDwn]

I have great faith that the greedy administrators are creative enough to cut costs without greatly diminishing the quality of education case if they found that there are less students who can afford 62K/yr without government assistance.

This would likely even lead to joke schools, like Cooley, Phoenix School or Law, or Charlotte School of Law to either go out of business, or shift their resources to online degree programs for working professionals.

If what you say is true, and there are students out there without connections, wealth, or savings, but would still like to advance their careers with a JD, then why are large facilities like this even necessary?

[jenesaislaw]

Well, can't deny that's a pretty building.

[Stringer Bell]

The assumption that financing to get legal education would not exist if it wasn't so heavily subsidized is crazy. If it's a good investment, people will find ways to lend for it. Banks will lend to people going to top schools because there is a high likelihood of being paid back. The government can even step in to spur lending with a more limited role by offering tax subsidies on income earned through educational interest payments. If the top applicants are unable to go to unaffordable schools that they can't get financing for, then low cost options will be there and firms will move to hire graduates from cheaper schools that are attracting talented applicants. Lower cost tuition benefits folks across all social strata even if it benefits rich people more disproportianately.

[westbayguy]

The assumption that financing to get legal education would not exist if it wasn't so heavily subsidized is crazy. If it's a good investment, people will find ways to lend for it. Banks will lend to people going to top schools because there is a high likelihood of being paid back. The government can even step in to spur lending with a more limited role by offering tax subsidies on income earned through educational interest payments. If the top applicants are unable to go to unaffordable schools that they can't get financing for, then low cost options will be there and firms will move to hire graduates from cheaper schools that are attracting talented applicants. Lower cost tuition benefits folks across all social strata even if it benefits rich people more disproportianately

.

I agree. Who says someone can't afford to go to law school? Thanks to government largesse (loans) anyone other than a bankrupt or convicted felon, or severely delinquent debtor can get loans totalling the full cost of tuition AND Cost of Living. There is no such thing a unmet "need".

Giving "merit" scholarships really in the end disproportionately helps those most likely to get high paying jobs (because they were good students to begin with and likely will be high paid lawyers) or they will go onto public interest and could get LRAPS or IBR to pay back their loans anyway.

"Merit" is a joke, just intended to get students to move to boost the school's USNWReport numbers. It's the middle class folks, who end up taking out 150k in loans, not the "poor" kids. The "poor" kids, who have huge undergraduate debt, or poor parents, or unemployed parents, or who blew their inheritance (but who can still make 160k) are the ones who get the scholarships and no (or little debt) How fair is THAT? I say spread the money around AFTER graduation based on abilty to repay (not your parents (in)ability to pay up front).

And while we're at it- why are law students paying 7.9% interest rates on government guaranteed loans that we never can get out from under (short of death). We're subsidizing UG loans to help students get worthless degrees from for profit institutions and who WILL likely be both unemployed and default on UG loanss. (Lawyers can't get out of the loans because to default is a Character issue that will get you disbarred).

Private loans were running 3.5% before the government ran the private lenders off- claiming the privates were profiting off the government. No, they were charging less and living off the spread. Get us some REASONABLE rates on GRAD PLUS loans for law students.

If you want some honesty in the system do away with ALL up front aid.

First you will even the playing field- schools would then just compete on merit (quality of educaiton and employablity upon graduation).

Second, schools that don't produce good, employable lawyers will be forced to close because no one will choose them, reducing the number of lawyers (a good thing, I don;t care who is "underserved" today).

Third, endowments could be used for something useful- like teaching and supporting programs.

Fourth, those who get 160k gigs (and some still do) can pay back their loans with there own dollars. No need for subsidy at any point, but schools COULD actually subsidize more people and at a greater level if they weren't making loans up front. Those who opt for govt/pi can be subsidized for the greater good.

Fifth, with IBR plans, many will get the government to pay back their loans anyway, so why should the schools be in the loan buisiness? Let everyone get GRADPlus loans.

And as long as we are talking hypocrisy, if schools ARE gooing to give out "need based" money, how about not counting parents abilty to pay at the point most students are attending? No matter what the law student's age, most are NOT getting money from mom and dad, or if they are, it's a hardship. To say they will phase out parents at 27-29 or thirty is jusat laughable when over 55 of law students will be out of law school before they hit 27.

And if mom and dad DID pay for undergraduate, the law student gets no help from the law school, but if mom and dad were smart enough to force junior to take out UG loans, law school will help pay THOSE off, before helping the middle class student whose parent's had the foresight to plan ahead. Yeah that makes sense.

Law School funding needs a BIG overhaul, but unfortunately it's too big an issue to address now. Good luck folks.

[glitter178]

The assumption that financing to get legal education would not exist if it wasn't so heavily subsidized is crazy. If it's a good investment, people will find ways to lend for it. Banks will lend to people going to top schools because there is a high likelihood of being paid back. The government can even step in to spur lending with a more limited role by offering tax subsidies on income earned through educational interest payments. If the top applicants are unable to go to unaffordable schools that they can't get financing for, then low cost options will be there and firms will move to hire graduates from cheaper schools that are attracting talented applicants. Lower cost tuition benefits folks across all social strata even if it benefits rich people more disproportianately

.

I agree. Who says someone can't afford to go to law school? Thanks to government largesse (loans) anyone other than a bankrupt or convicted felon, or severely delinquent debtor can get loans totalling the full cost of tuition AND Cost of Living. There is no such thing a unmet "need".

Giving "merit" scholarships really in the end disproportionately helps those most likely to get high paying jobs (because they were good students to begin with and likely will be high paid lawyers) or they will go onto public interest and could get LRAPS or IBR to pay back their loans anyway.

"Merit" is a joke, just intended to get students to move to boost the school's USNWReport numbers. It's the middle class folks, who end up taking out 150k in loans, not the "poor" kids. The "poor" kids, who have huge undergraduate debt, or poor parents, or unemployed parents, or who blew their inheritance (but who can still make 160k) are the ones who get the scholarships and no (or little debt) How fair is THAT? I say spread the money around AFTER graduation based on abilty to repay (not your parents (in)ability to pay up front).

And while we're at it- why are law students paying 7.9% interest rates on government guaranteed loans that we never can get out from under (short of death). We're subsidizing UG loans to help students get worthless degrees from for profit institutions and who WILL likely be both unemployed and default on UG loanss. (Lawyers can't get out of the loans because to default is a Character issue that will get you disbarred).

Private loans were running 3.5% before the government ran the private lenders off- claiming the privates were profiting off the government. No, they were charging less and living off the spread. Get us some REASONABLE rates on GRAD PLUS loans for law students.

If you want some honesty in the system do away with ALL up front aid.

First you will even the playing field- schools would then just compete on merit (quality of educaiton and employablity upon graduation).

Second, schools that don't produce good, employable lawyers will be forced to close because no one will choose them, reducing the number of lawyers (a good thing, I don;t care who is "underserved" today).

Third, endowments could be used for something useful- like teaching and supporting programs.

Fourth, those who get 160k gigs (and some still do) can pay back their loans with there own dollars. No need for subsidy at any point, but schools COULD actually subsidize more people and at a greater level if they weren't making loans up front. Those who opt for govt/pi can be subsidized for the greater good.

Fifth, with IBR plans, many will get the government to pay back their loans anyway, so why should the schools be in the loan buisiness? Let everyone get GRADPlus loans.

And as long as we are talking hypocrisy, if schools ARE gooing to give out "need based" money, how about not counting parents abilty to pay at the point most students are attending? No matter what the law student's age, most are NOT getting money from mom and dad, or if they are, it's a hardship. To say they will phase out parents at 27-29 or thirty is jusat laughable when over 55 of law students will be out of law school before they hit 27.

And if mom and dad DID pay for undergraduate, the law student gets no help from the law school, but if mom and dad were smart enough to force junior to take out UG loans, law school will help pay THOSE off, before helping the middle class student whose parent's had the foresight to plan ahead. Yeah that makes sense.

Law School funding needs a BIG overhaul, but unfortunately it's too big an issue to address now. Good luck folks.

i will never understand the argument for "leveling the playing field" in regards to law school tuition, scholarships and aid, considering that MANY (and i don't mean all, but i most certainly do mean many) MANY MANY law applicants are applying to and planning to attend law school in order to put themselves into the upper echelons of society through big law or other high-paying career aspirations most assuredly assumed to separate themselves wholly from the working and middle classes.

The system is by no means perfect, and the worst part is arguably the general ignorance Americans have in regards to what loans will really cost, how much loan payments will really be each month and what percentage of income it will absorb, as well as the EXTREME RISK and professional limits taking out professional or other academic loans poses for individuals, families, and on up to society as a whole.

[observationalist]

Happy bday observationalist, if you're reading this.

Whoops... thanks. Celebrated at an Irish pub with a bunch of Chilean attorneys and drank German beer and Tennessee Whiskey. The randomness of working in another country.

Update to mention the Senator's correspondence with the ABA has formed part of the basis for a new class action suit against Thomas Jefferson School of Law. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=156425

Check out the cites in the complaint... they include virtually every major story or damning quote over the last few years. Interesting to see how this all plays out.