Indiana Tech Law School

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
R86
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:03 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby R86 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:18 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:Peter Alexander loves people like you. Just absolutely loves you guys. To think that the higher education problem is not a problem created by and for liberals is fucking hilarious. Taking away government loans won't fix the problem? Wut? It would fix it overnight. When banks have to take the risk of people defaulting because they can't find employment, they stop making loans.


It would be a messy fix, but a fix none the less.

Tons of schools would close.

The argument against it is the whole 'access' thing, lower income people not having the same opportunities. I'm sure as hell too broke to qualify for a private loan to attend a law school, and I couldn't go to family for cash. Also, I couldn't bank on getting a significant scholarship because I believe schools would be forced to stop cross-subsidizing if they lose the cash from guaranteed federal loans.

I wonder if I would be able to take my LSAT score and GPA to a lender to show that I am less of a risk or if I would just be shit out of luck, forced to save up until I could pay my way.

Just a lot of interesting things to think about.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15503
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:22 pm

I.P. Daly wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:To think that the higher education problem is not a problem created by and for liberals is fucking hilarious. Taking away government loans won't fix the problem? Wut? It would fix it overnight. When banks have to take the risk of people defaulting because they can't find employment, they stop making loans.



I'm not challenging your point to government backed students loans were created, and are backed by liberals, but for my own edification, can you provide support for this?


When I say liberals I'm referring to about 90% of Democrats and 50-75% of Republicans, so keep that in mind. I'm more concerned with advocates of big government (R's and D's both), utopian do-gooders (those who are concerned about minority "access" to things like law school) and big business (higher education--for-profits and non-profits alike) joining forces to fuck us. You know, the way most laws get passed.

http://www.educationnews.org/higher-edu ... tablished/

To be fair to Democrats, Mitt Romney's position is simply to go back to the way things were before 2010, which is of course no solution at all. He still wants a government guarantee, which to my mind is no different than the government making the loans itself.

R86 wrote:The argument against it is the whole 'access' thing, lower income people not having the same opportunities. I'm sure as hell too broke to qualify for a private loan to attend a law school, and I couldn't go to family for cash.


That sure is the argument. It's the one Cooley's Dean has used for years to justify their enormous enrollment.

But the truth is plenty of banks would lend to you if you went to a legitimate law school. If I had 100K lying around I'd have no problem loaning it to a kid who got into Harvard. Wouldn't you? And with prices dropping rapidly people would have a much easier time paying their own way through and getting by on smaller loans. Plus, there isn't anything stopping schools from making the loans themselves. Just force whoever makes the loan to take the risk.
Last edited by Tiago Splitter on Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:24 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:Peter Alexander loves people like you. Just absolutely loves you guys. To think that the higher education problem is not a problem created by and for liberals is fucking hilarious. Taking away government loans won't fix the problem? Wut? It would fix it overnight. When banks have to take the risk of people defaulting because they can't find employment, they stop making loans.


I went to graduate school in 2004, before US Government loans covered everything. The financial aid office in the school had pamphlets of Citibank loan applications for supplemental loans. The interest rate was 11%.

I don't think you understand the world of finance. When banks take risks, they don't stop giving out loans...they just jack up the interest rate.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Just want to keep this one up here. You've really jumped the shark Cougs.


You can "leave that one up" all you want. You think all those people on Wall Street who paid themselves eight-figure bonuses provided any social utility? All these university administrators making $500K/year plus salaries?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15503
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:29 pm

JCougar wrote:You can "leave that one up" all you want. You think all those people on Wall Street who paid themselves eight-figure bonuses provided any social utility? All these university administrators making $500K/year plus salaries?


All you are saying is that wealth should be confiscated when it doesn't come from providing pure social utility. Since it's too hard to figure this out, we just have to heavily tax everyone making good money. Somehow you think social utility is advanced by taking all of that money and setting it on fire.

JCougar wrote:I went to graduate school in 2004, before US Government loans covered everything. The financial aid office in the school had pamphlets of Citibank loan applications for supplemental loans. The interest rate was 11%.

I don't think you understand the world of finance. When banks take risks, they don't stop giving out loans...they just jack up the interest rate.


You remember what tuition was in 2004? You really think banks would loan 250K at just 11% to someone to attend Florida Coastal?

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby danquayle » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:42 pm

R86 wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Peter Alexander loves people like you. Just absolutely loves you guys. To think that the higher education problem is not a problem created by and for liberals is fucking hilarious. Taking away government loans won't fix the problem? Wut? It would fix it overnight. When banks have to take the risk of people defaulting because they can't find employment, they stop making loans.


It would be a messy fix, but a fix none the less.

Tons of schools would close.

The argument against it is the whole 'access' thing, lower income people not having the same opportunities. I'm sure as hell too broke to qualify for a private loan to attend a law school, and I couldn't go to family for cash. Also, I couldn't bank on getting a significant scholarship because I believe schools would be forced to stop cross-subsidizing if they lose the cash from guaranteed federal loans.

I wonder if I would be able to take my LSAT score and GPA to a lender to show that I am less of a risk or if I would just be shit out of luck, forced to save up until I could pay my way.

Just a lot of interesting things to think about.


It would likely force you and people like you to go into fields of study which are a more sure bet, like engineering. I am from a similar background, and even though things worked out for me, I sometimes wish I had been forced into a more surefire career.

To a degree, yes, that is depriving people from poorer economic backgrounds a shot at being a lawyer. But people who can't bear the cost of failure are precisely those people who shouldn't be taking such a risk. This goes doubly so if you're one of the types that think the government ought to be in the business of protecting the less fortunate. For most, denying access to hundreds of thousands in non-dischargeable loans would be the most benevolent thing you could for them.

The federal loan program was conceived of as a matter of defense. The National Defense Education Act originally only covered sciences, engineering... in other words the degrees that are actually demanded by our economy. I really think it ought to go back to that.
Last edited by danquayle on Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15503
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:44 pm

To any applicants out there who may have happened upon this page while searching for info about law schools: ignore the previous few posts. JCougar and I are in 100% agreement that you should not attend Indiana Tech Law School.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:47 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:All you are saying is that wealth should be confiscated when it doesn't come from providing pure social utility. Since it's too hard to figure this out, we just have to heavily tax everyone making good money. Somehow you think social utility is advanced by taking all of that money and setting it on fire.


Listen, I don't want to go any farther off-topic on this thread. All I have to say is that Wall Street doesn't produce anything. It doesn't create anything. It's core function is to allocate capital to its most efficient use in order to grease the wheels of actual production. It had one job to do, and it allocated this nations capital into the biggest steaming pile of horse dung anyone could have ever imagined, and it got rich doing it.

No broadly systematic rules are ever going to be perfect or fair for everyone. But the fact that Wall Street bankers and People like Mr. Alexander are the ones cashing in on this system makes me far less sympathetic to the cries of victimhood eminiting from the most privileged people this planet has ever seen when we propose to raise their taxes by 3%. As far as "setting money on fire," the government is envious as to how efficient the finance industry is at doing that--all the while enriching themselves.

Tiago Splitter wrote:You remember what tuition was in 2004? You really think banks would loan 250K at just 11% to someone to attend Florida Coastal?


It wasn't really that much lower than it is now. People in my non-law grad program in 2004 were regularly accruing six figures of debt if they decided to go on to their PhD.
Last edited by JCougar on Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby danquayle » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:47 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:To any applicants out there who may have happened upon this page while searching for info about law schools: ignore the previous few posts. JCougar and I are in 100% agreement that you should not attend Indiana Tech Law School.


+1

I think we should ensure every single page this thread contains at least one "You should not attend Indiana Tech law School." Just to be safe.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby danquayle » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:53 pm

JCougar wrote:
Listen, I don't want to go any farther off-topic on this thread. All I have to say is that Wall Street doesn't produce anything. It doesn't create anything. It's core function is to allocate capital to its most efficient use in order to grease the wheels of actual production. It had one job to do, and it allocated this nations capital into the biggest steaming pile of horse dung anyone could have ever imagined, and it got rich doing it.


I really don't want to jump to defending Wall Street, but you realize efficiently allocating capital is perhaps the most useful thing any industry could do, right? It's what makes our entire system work, and what differentiates it (and arguably makes it better) from more centrally planned economies.

I would argue that efficient allocation is really just "cost-savings", and if you're going to argue "cost-savings" isn't productive then you might as well call most of what IT companies, telecoms and any consultancy does non-productive.

Where we can agree is in the last part of your statement. Wall Street really needs to be held accountable for bad decision making, not rewarded. Alas, this requires an entirely new thread.
Last edited by danquayle on Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:59 pm, edited 5 times in total.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby 071816 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:56 pm

WARNING: DO NOT ATTEND INDIANA TECH LAW SCHOOL FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15503
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:00 pm

For anyone curious, here are the prices at every law school going back to 2004-2005:

--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
R86
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:03 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby R86 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:05 pm

chimp wrote:WARNING: DO NOT ATTEND INDIANA TECH LAW SCHOOL FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER


If you read this and think it doesn't apply to you or your circumstances are different in such a way that Indiana Tech University, unaccredited TTTTrap that it is, will offer you a better future than any other option you have, please make an account and share your story with us. Please don't ignore the warnings around you. At least make an effort to scratch the surface of the incredible wealth of information on this site.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:07 pm

danquayle wrote:I really don't want to jump to defending Wall Street, but you realize efficiently allocating capital is perhaps the most useful thing any industry could do, right? It's what makes our entire system work, and what differentiates it (and arguably make it better) from more centrally planned economies.


I'm in complete agreement. I am not in favor of central planning. I am, however, in favor of regulations that act to steer the industry more toward this goal, because it doesn't happen in a totally free market. A market without regulations rewards fraud, short-term thinking, and unscrupulous behavior.

When certain industries make too much money, however, they gain too much influence on our politics--and therefore can bend the rules to benefit them and only them. I'd like to see a return to a 90% top tax rate like we had under Eisenhower. In effect, it becomes a national salary cap that limits the reward for outright greed. I realize that will never fly in today's political climate, however.

danquayle wrote:I would argue that efficiency is really just "cost-savings", and if you're going to argue "cost-savings" isn't productive then you might as well call most of what IT companies, telecoms and any consultancy does non-productive.


LOL. I used to work for a large telcom, and let me tell you. Most of what it does is non-productive. You could fire half of their white-collar workers tonight, and by tomorrow morning, the company wouldn't miss a single beat.

danquayle wrote:Say not to Indiana Tech.


Agreed, and I'm dropping my political arguments from this thread.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby danquayle » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:11 pm

R86 wrote:
chimp wrote:WARNING: DO NOT ATTEND INDIANA TECH LAW SCHOOL FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER


If you read this and think it doesn't apply to you or your circumstances are different in such a way that Indiana Tech University, unaccredited TTTTrap that it is, will offer you a better future than any other option you have, please make an account and share your story with us. Please don't ignore the warnings around you. At least make an effort to scratch the surface of the incredible wealth of information on this site.


And do not think our warnings indicate any sense of elitism or a verdict that YOU can't do it, but rather reflect the collective insights, regrets and lamentations of the many TLSers that went before you. We were you, and do not want you to become us.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby androstan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:58 pm

All that fedgov has to do is make reasonable requirements of the schools in order to be eligible for federally-backed student loans. One key question: is the government at least breaking even on this transaction? Are the loans being paid back by enough students to make up for the students who go on IBR or outright default?

If your school isn't breaking even, you're on probation. If you continue not breaking even for fedgov, you lose access to federally backed loans. You can reapply upon a showing that employment outcomes are substantially better.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby timbs4339 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:02 pm

The higher education market is not broken because of government loans. It is broken because large numbers of people are making stupid financial decisions because of cognitive bias, information asymmetry, and misguided social norms. These social norms are definitely exploited and reinforced by the liberal progressive class, and the cognitive biases are taken advantage of (there was a great profile of the old president of George Washington University who started attracting students by raising the sticker tuition price, reasoning correctly that students would, all else being equal, assume a more expensive school delivered greater value). Remove the government loan guarantee and the loan terms would get more onerous- but this would not change consumer behavior because consumers are irrational about higher ed. It will take a generation suffering under student loan debt to bust the myth that education debt is good debt no matter how much, what program, what career goals.

What we really need is government caps on tuition like they have in Europe. This *should* be more palatable to the so-called progressives that run higher education, but of course it's very difficult to support something that will reduce your salary, benefits, perks, and increase your workload.

Back to the matter at hand: This website has already precipitated two negative stories about Indiana Tech in major news outlets. It's also the number one resource for prospective law students, so there are going to be applicants viewing this thread and making new threads. Any letter or statement by TLS posters to the Dean would require a response. It would never be a serious debate, of course, but it would be worth making the point.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:08 pm

I still want schools themselves to be forced to underwrite a percentage of the debt they generate. Not all of it, but an optimal percentage whereby if there is a reasonable chance of their student passing the bar and obtaining a viable attorney job, there is incentive to admit them and take their tuition money, but if that percentage gets too low, admitting that student becomes too risky.

I have no idea what the optimal percentage would be. 20%? 50%? If you were concerned about this pushing out poorer families, there could be an adjustment for family income whereby the school could underwrite a lesser percentage if that student were from a low-income background.

The only way to do this without imposing blanket bureaucratic rules is to allocate some of the financial risk to the school itself. This way, sham schools like Indiana Tech would not be able to attract investors.

Edit: this would keep tuition down as well, because the lower the tuition, the lower the risk. It would also encourage them to fail out non-performing students earlier instead of stringing them along for 2 more years and chewing up their loan money when they have no ability/interest in getting a law job after they find out what law is like. It would also encourage them to discount tuition for 1L, making it less of a sunk cost for everyone if they want to part ways. It would also force them to more realistically evaluate their students' career potential instead of doing the "case method" and administering sloppy and nearly useless law school exams in their current format--since identifying high-potential students early would be a source of profit for them.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:36 pm

JCougar wrote:Edit: this would keep tuition down as well, because the lower the tuition, the lower the risk. It would also encourage them to fail out non-performing students earlier instead of stringing them along for 2 more years and chewing up their loan money when they have no ability/interest in getting a law job after they find out what law is like. It would also encourage them to discount tuition for 1L, making it less of a sunk cost for everyone if they want to part ways. It would also force them to more realistically evaluate their students' career potential instead of doing the "case method" and administering sloppy and nearly useless law school exams in their current format--since identifying high-potential students early would be a source of profit for them.


The more and more I think this over, the more I like it. It would change the law school administration's core mission from one of treating each student like an ATM and extracting as much wealth as possible over three years and using their institutional capital on ultimately wasteful pursuits that puff up the US News rankings and churn out bales and bales of "research" that few people even read; and instead, it would force them to use their institutional capital to treat students like investments. To only take them on if they thought they would produce, and once taking them on, trying to realistically evaluate and maximize their production capabilities.

As it is, law schools have no vested interest in actually preparing their students to succeed or realistically evaluating their students' potential. Their interest is over once you sign the loan documents--especially since they can lie about their placement stats.
Last edited by JCougar on Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15503
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:38 pm

The nice thing is that it's hard to imagine a system worse than the one we have now. Just about any of the proposals in this thread or anywhere else would move things in the right direction.

User avatar
howell
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:57 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby howell » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:41 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:For anyone curious, here are the prices at every law school going back to 2004-2005:

--LinkRemoved--

Thank you for posting this. I thought I had seen something like this before, but I forgot where. It's so sickening. They have an update page with 2011-12 info too. At a lot of public schools, a student starting in 2009 would pay twice as much in tuition as a student starting just 5 years earlier in 2004, and the 2004 student would have come out in a much better economy.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby androstan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:45 pm

timbs4339 wrote:The higher education market is not broken because of government loans.


Correct. At least part of the reason is because of irrational government loans. And by irrational I mean there is no consideration given to whether the loan will be paid back.

timbs4339 wrote: It is broken because large numbers of people are making stupid financial decisions because of cognitive bias, information asymmetry, and misguided social norms.


I would argue that people are entitled to their own financial stupidity, cognitive bias, and personal social norms as components of free will and liberty, as long as it doesn't drag everyone else down too much. As long as the fedgov is breaking even on the student loan transaction, this condition is met in my opinion.

With respect to information asymmetry, that is inherently present in most transactions, especially as between a large company/organization and many consumers. In my opinion this is properly an area to be addressed by consumer protection, false marketing, and fraud laws.

timbs4339 wrote:Remove the government loan guarantee and the loan terms would get more onerous- but this would not change consumer behavior because consumers are irrational about higher ed. It will take a generation suffering under student loan debt to bust the myth that education debt is good debt no matter how much, what program, what career goals.


I think most agree that, if students had to go through a private lender and additionally had bankruptcy protection, the terms of most student loans would deter many more students from attending.

Notwithstanding that, even assuming everyone continued to take out the worst kinds of loans for students, it is in my view a fundamental right to make irrational choices and be miserable. If one has been misled that is another matter, and they should sue the entity(ies) they think committed fraud.

timbs4339 wrote:What we really need is government caps on tuition like they have in Europe.


I strongly disagree. The is no one-size-fits-all solution. Not every school can operate under a cap, or should. If a market of informed consumers are able and willing to pay a very high price, that is okay. An arbitrary cap simply places the government's thumb on the scale and create market inefficiencies.

JCougar wrote:I still want schools themselves to be forced to underwrite a percentage of the debt they generate....

I have no idea what the optimal percentage would be. 20%? 50%? If you were concerned about this pushing out poorer families, there could be an adjustment for family income whereby the school could underwrite a lesser percentage if that student were from a low-income background.

The only way to do this without imposing blanket bureaucratic rules is to allocate some of the financial risk to the school itself.

Edit: this would keep tuition down as well, because the lower the tuition, the lower the risk.


One way to do it is to tie the cost of attendance to graduates' outcomes. Every graduate pays X% of their disposable income for Y years. The school certainly has a vested interest there, but perhaps too much of a vested interest in pushing students into traditional biglaw. You could specify a statutory maximum amount that largely removes the heavy incentive for biglaw and places the incentive on decent legal employment, so the maximum would be achievable by anyone making, say, $50k/year or something.

You could also simply reinstate bankruptcy protection for student debtors, force all student loans through the school, and prohibit the request of an applicant's financial situation (other than a basic credit check). I haven't thought about that much. Also:

DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO LIVE AND WORK IN INDIANA. NOT BECAUSE IT'S FREE. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COST OF LIVING STIPEND. NO REASON. DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby timbs4339 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:54 pm

androstan wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:The higher education market is not broken because of government loans.


Correct. At least part of the reason is because of irrational government loans. And by irrational I mean there is no consideration given to whether the loan will be paid back.

timbs4339 wrote: It is broken because large numbers of people are making stupid financial decisions because of cognitive bias, information asymmetry, and misguided social norms.


I would argue that people are entitled to their own financial stupidity, cognitive bias, and personal social norms as components of free will and liberty, as long as it doesn't drag everyone else down too much. As long as the fedgov is breaking even on the student loan transaction, this condition is met in my opinion.

With respect to information asymmetry, that is inherently present in most transactions, especially as between a large company/organization and many consumers. In my opinion this is properly an area to be addressed by consumer protection, false marketing, and fraud laws.

timbs4339 wrote:Remove the government loan guarantee and the loan terms would get more onerous- but this would not change consumer behavior because consumers are irrational about higher ed. It will take a generation suffering under student loan debt to bust the myth that education debt is good debt no matter how much, what program, what career goals.


I think most agree that, if students had to go through a private lender and additionally had bankruptcy protection, the terms of most student loans would deter many more students from attending.

Notwithstanding that, even assuming everyone continued to take out the worst kinds of loans for students, it is in my view a fundamental right to make irrational choices and be miserable. If one has been misled that is another matter, and they should sue the entity(ies) they think committed fraud.

timbs4339 wrote:What we really need is government caps on tuition like they have in Europe.


I strongly disagree. The is no one-size-fits-all solution. Not every school can operate under a cap, or should. If a market of informed consumers are able and willing to pay a very high price, that is okay. An arbitrary cap simply places the government's thumb on the scale and create market inefficiencies.

JCougar wrote:I still want schools themselves to be forced to underwrite a percentage of the debt they generate....

I have no idea what the optimal percentage would be. 20%? 50%? If you were concerned about this pushing out poorer families, there could be an adjustment for family income whereby the school could underwrite a lesser percentage if that student were from a low-income background.

The only way to do this without imposing blanket bureaucratic rules is to allocate some of the financial risk to the school itself.

Edit: this would keep tuition down as well, because the lower the tuition, the lower the risk.


One way to do it is to tie the cost of attendance to graduates' outcomes. Every graduate pays X% of their disposable income for Y years. The school certainly has a vested interest there, but perhaps too much of a vested interest in pushing students into traditional biglaw. You could specify a statutory maximum amount that largely removes the heavy incentive for biglaw and places the incentive on decent legal employment, so the maximum would be achievable by anyone making, say, $50k/year or something.

You could also simply reinstate bankruptcy protection for student debtors and force all loans through the school. I haven't thought about that much. Also:

DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO LIVE AND WORK IN INDIANA. NOT BECAUSE IT'S FREE. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COST OF LIVING STIPEND. NO REASON. DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH.


Higher education is not a "market" like shoes or laptops. It is the system by which we train our workforce to remain competitive in the modern global economy. It, like primary education, is of public concern. Not everything can or should be reduced to simplistic Econ 101 thinking, especially when it threatens the economy like a trillion dollars of student loan debt.

We just got out of a recession caused by a lot of people taking on massive amounts of consumer debt based on irrational decision-making. This decision didn't just screw over the people taking on or issuing the debt, it screwed over everybody. I'm don't want to let the same mistake happen again due to some misguided fear of "market inefficiency."

DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO LIVE AND WORK IN INDIANA. NOT BECAUSE IT'S FREE. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COST OF LIVING STIPEND. NO REASON. DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby JCougar » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:02 pm

It is kind of cool and heartwarming that liberals, conservatives, and moderates can all come together and agree that the prospect of attending Indiana Tech is a horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad, life-threatening notion.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby androstan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:04 pm

timbs4339 wrote:Higher education is not a "market" like shoes or laptops. It is the system by which we train our workforce to remain competitive in the modern global economy. It, like primary education, is of public concern. Not everything can or should be reduced to simplistic Econ 101 thinking, especially when it threatens the economy like a trillion dollars of student loan debt.

We just got out of a recession caused by a lot of people taking on massive amounts of consumer debt based on irrational decision-making. This decision didn't just screw over the people taking on or issuing the debt, it screwed over everybody. I'm don't want to let the same mistake happen again due to some misguided fear of "market inefficiency."


It is certainly not Econ 101. There is a balance between trying to achieve an objectively determinable overall best social outcome and a person's individual liberty right to make the subjectively best decision to them personally. Each of us lands somewhere on that spectrum and it is all of our views, together, that (ideally) go into the lawmaking process to produce a kind of aggregate compromise. I tend to believe that a well regulated market tends to run well and give individuals what they want while deterring behavior that is TOO objectively irrational i.e. damaging to society as a whole. We can agree to disagree, I believe ours is a difference of degree only, and maybe you wouldn't call things like education and healthcare "markets," although I use that term expansively to encompass any situation involving a large number of transactions, buyers and sellers interacting and exchanging resources.

DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO LIVE AND WORK IN INDIANA. NOT BECAUSE IT'S FREE. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COST OF LIVING STIPEND. NO REASON. DO NOT GO TO INDIANA TECH.
Last edited by androstan on Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Indiana Tech Law School

Postby androstan » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:05 pm

JCougar wrote:It is kind of cool and heartwarming that liberals, conservatives, and moderates can all come together and agree that the prospect of attending Indiana Tech is a horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad, life-threatening notion.


Need a "like" button on this post.

One issue we can all come together on. That's how f*d up higher education has become.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dclaw93, LotJockey, wolfintally and 7 guests