Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby 20141023 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:02 am

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
homestyle28
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:48 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby homestyle28 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:17 am


jack5on
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby jack5on » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:23 am

kappycaft1 wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:What's the effect of PAYE on your FICO score? The ability to get a loan and the rate of interest? What happens to your credit if you are thirty days late?

I am not sure... does it negatively affect one's FICO score? My taking out undergrad loans and repaying them on a timely basis actually pushed my credit score over 750, so I am not sure why graduate loans would be a bad thing.

Docreviewsux wrote:What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

This I would actually like to know... if you are already in the system, do you get to stay in it, or do you get screwed? I would hope that those who are already enrolled in PAYE will get to continue repaying under this system even if it is revoked.


The most simple answer is that your debt to income level has just skyrocketed. Other reasons are: most people are full time students without employment, and this may be the first major unsubsidized loan a student has taken in their life so they do not have a history demonstrating they are punctual in paying down the debt.

PRgradBYU
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby PRgradBYU » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:24 am

Docreviewsux wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/law_school_is_a_sham/

Read before enrolling lemmings


Get a life, buddy. Sorry you bombed the LSAT and/or have an embarrassing GPA.

TheNextAmendment
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby TheNextAmendment » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:26 am

Thank you for posting this. After a thorough read I have decided to drop out of my T20 w/scholarship and continue to work retail management. Thank you so much for your time- you changed my life! My hero.

PRgradBYU
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby PRgradBYU » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:26 am

Don't feed the troll, guys. OP has posted multiple threads about not attending law school.

PRgradBYU
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:04 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby PRgradBYU » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:29 am

TheNextAmendment wrote:Thank you for posting this. After a thorough read I have decided to drop out of my T20 w/scholarship and continue to work retail management. Thank you so much for your time- you changed my life! My hero.


Lol I think this is exactly what OP wanted.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby vanwinkle » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:31 am

Topics merged. One thread per topic.

Docreviewsux
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby Docreviewsux » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:40 am

PRgradBYU wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/law_school_is_a_sham/

Read before enrolling lemmings


Get a life, buddy. Sorry you bombed the LSAT and/or have an embarrassing GPA.


Don't make stupid assumptions.

Ivy League undergrad, top 20 law school with a fellowship, SA and all that. Graduated in 09. Now doc review for life.

Docreviewsux
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby Docreviewsux » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:43 am

TheNextAmendment wrote:Thank you for posting this. After a thorough read I have decided to drop out of my T20 w/scholarship and continue to work retail management. Thank you so much for your time- you changed my life! My hero.


In your case, I recommend living it up in law school and taking out the max amount of loans possible.

TheNextAmendment
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby TheNextAmendment » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:44 am

Docreviewsux wrote:
PRgradBYU wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/law_school_is_a_sham/

Read before enrolling lemmings


Get a life, buddy. Sorry you bombed the LSAT and/or have an embarrassing GPA.


Don't make stupid assumptions.

Ivy League undergrad, top 20 law school with a fellowship, SA and all that. Graduated in 09. Now doc review for life.


shouldve studied harder.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby patrickd139 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:45 am

TheNextAmendment wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:
PRgradBYU wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/law_school_is_a_sham/

Read before enrolling lemmings


Get a life, buddy. Sorry you bombed the LSAT and/or have an embarrassing GPA.


Don't make stupid assumptions.

Ivy League undergrad, top 20 law school with a fellowship, SA and all that. Graduated in 09. Now doc review for life.


shouldve studied harder.

Lots of reasons could have cause OP to end up where s/he did. We don't know them, so let it die, guys.

Really appreciate the thread title change.

User avatar
Xs20
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:03 pm

Re: Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread

Postby Xs20 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:55 am

areyouinsane?

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

Re: Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:01 pm

Also this: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... 043320.php

This quote especially:
A Washington Monthly reporter wrote:I got a glimpse of law schools’ reality-distortion field last fall, when I interviewed Erwin Chemerinsky, the founding dean of the new law school at the University of California, Irvine, a public university. Including living expenses (which are often borrowed along with tuition), a year in UC Irvine’s program costs nonresident students $77,000—the second-most expensive legal education in the country. (In-state students pay $71,000.)

Why, I asked Chemerinsky for a Washington Post Magazine story, did he design a new program that was so notably expensive? First, he denied that UC Irvine was more expensive than the University of Southern California or Stanford, which is not true. Then he said that UC Irvine had to charge so much because the school receives no public subsidies or taxpayer support: “If we are not going to be subsidized by the state,” Chemerinsky said, in an oddly high-pitched, singsong voice, as if he were explaining the simplest concept to a child, “and we are going to be a top-quality law school, there is not an alternative in terms of what it is going to cost.”

Chemerinsky’s no-subsidy explanation for why UC Irvine’s program is so expensive is not true either, it turns out. Last fall, the law school and the university refused to answer questions about how much, if anything, UC or any other public entity had spent to get the law school up and running. Repeated Public Records Act requests and months later, long after the Post story was published, I got my answer: as of June of last year, the state had “subsidized” Chemerinsky’s school to the tune of $75 million, and will do so at about $25 million a year going forward.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread

Postby Big Dog » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:09 pm

I am not sure... does it negatively affect one's FICO score? My taking out undergrad loans and repaying them on a timely basis actually pushed my credit score over 750, so I am not sure why graduate loans would be a bad thing.


Debt affects your ability to borrow in the future, even with a solid FICO score. For example, the standard ROT for a mortgage payment, is ~28% of income, and ~35% of income for total debt payments. So, the ability to buy a house is directly affected by your outstanding debt payments, regardless of an 800 FICO.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby 20141023 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:24 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22787
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:34 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:Reasking this:

Docreviewsux wrote:What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

This I would actually like to know... if you are already in the system, do you get to stay in it, or do you get screwed? I would hope that those who are already enrolled in PAYE will get to continue repaying under this system even if it is revoked.

I don't think anyone can answer this; the programs are completely new and no one's even had any debt forgiven under them yet, so I don't think anyone can say what happens if the plug gets pulled on them. I would like to think that if you were going to kill the programs, it would have to be for all future participants, and that you couldn't yank the rug out from under people already on them. I'd think there'd have to be some grandfathering. But I can't give you any evidence to support that (besides "it wouldn't be FAIRRRRRRR").

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

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:37 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:Reasking this:

Docreviewsux wrote:What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

This I would actually like to know... if you are already in the system, do you get to stay in it, or do you get screwed? I would hope that those who are already enrolled in PAYE will get to continue repaying under this system even if it is revoked.


The repeal would probably not only be for strictly budgetary reasons, but would likely also be prompted by some kind of moralistic BS like they used to make student loans non-dischargable (the "welfare queen" law student who dumps her loans on the taxpayer then takes that 160K Skadden job) or some Tea Party no bailouts rhetoric. Yes, this makes no sense, but it didn't make any sense back in the 70s/80s either.

When they made student loans non-dischargable, they applied it to all student loans. Therefore, I'd think they would apply PAYE repeal to all student loans as well.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby sinfiery » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:38 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:I support you FamilyLawEsq! lol, if not only because sinfiery's comment was actually extremely hypocritical. Your original comment was both reasonable and a "personal belief." His reaction seems unwarranted and over the top to me, where I almost wonder if he was just trolling you in the first place.

Apologies for the tone.

But that idea just limits the access. It will lower the average quality of applicant but at the same time lower the total number of grads and essentially works as a bandaid. It sacrifices one of the greatest things about living in a first world country (Access to capital at a reasonable interest rate) to temporarily fix a problem that should be fixed at its root.

Eventually, you may have to change this 50% to 70%, or 100%. Who knows? Bigger bandaid, etc. But if you fix the root of the problem (Which I believe to be the TTT employment data which needs to be as close to transparent as possible), you no longer have a problem and without sacrifice to an ideal I hold with some high regard.

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2080
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: More on Law School Fraud Suits

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:40 pm

Clearlynotstefan wrote:"Across the country, the need for legal services among those who cannot pay or have limited ability to pay has never been higher," the bar report said.

So there will be a glut of jobs providing services to those who can't pay you! Oh thank god.
(For the record, I'm all for the impoverished having access to legal experts, but the way this article made it sound like that was an great opportunity for the legal market made me chuckle)


This is essentially the same as saying, "There's a great market for giving people free shit!" Well no shit, there's always been a great market for giving people free ANYTHING. What a bunch of idiots.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby 20141023 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:43 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:57 pm

chemerinsky lives on the street I grew up on (parents are UCI profs). I wave to him when I see him and chat for a couple minutes when I come home to visit. he's very intelligent and kind. not sure what to make of his pet law school project but lets see how the grads do over the next few years

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby Micdiddy » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:01 pm

Docreviewsux wrote:
PRgradBYU wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/law_school_is_a_sham/

Read before enrolling lemmings


Get a life, buddy. Sorry you bombed the LSAT and/or have an embarrassing GPA.


Don't make stupid assumptions.

Ivy League undergrad, top 20 law school with a fellowship, SA and all that. Graduated in 09. Now doc review for life.


No one else is going to call this out?
So OP you went to Minnesota or GW and now you're wondering why you're doing docreview?

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

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:08 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:Reasking this:

Docreviewsux wrote:What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

This I would actually like to know... if you are already in the system, do you get to stay in it, or do you get screwed? I would hope that those who are already enrolled in PAYE will get to continue repaying under this system even if it is revoked.


The repeal would probably not only be for strictly budgetary reasons, but would likely also be prompted by some kind of moralistic BS like they used to make student loans non-dischargable (the "welfare queen" law student who dumps her loans on the taxpayer then takes that 160K Skadden job) or some Tea Party no bailouts rhetoric. Yes, this makes no sense, but it didn't make any sense back in the 70s/80s either.

When they made student loans non-dischargable, they applied it to all student loans. Therefore, I'd think they would apply PAYE repeal to all student loans as well.

This is the thing that scares me the most with PAYE. Under this program, you only make minimal payments towards your loans, and with a 6.8/7.9% interest rate, the interest alone will usually be much more than mothly payments on any reasonably-sized balance. The problem is that after a few years, "sticker" price for one person quickly becomes almost half a million dollars... so if they revoke the program and don't grandfather those already enrolled in it, they will have essentially doubled the debt load on many debtors. I can't see them doing this, but only for the same reason A. Nony Mouse stated above: "it wouldn't be fair."


Well it doesn't have to be repeal. I think PAYE/IBR still makes money for the government overall. The system is really designed for your average UG graduate working a SPS entry-level gig with 30K in debt. Law schools and students have been able to exploit a loophole in the program as part of the financial calculus pre-law school. All it takes is some staffer to start looking into which loans are losing money or to get some emails from law deans pitching IBR as a default option.

The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22787
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:16 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:Reasking this:

Docreviewsux wrote:What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

This I would actually like to know... if you are already in the system, do you get to stay in it, or do you get screwed? I would hope that those who are already enrolled in PAYE will get to continue repaying under this system even if it is revoked.


The repeal would probably not only be for strictly budgetary reasons, but would likely also be prompted by some kind of moralistic BS like they used to make student loans non-dischargable (the "welfare queen" law student who dumps her loans on the taxpayer then takes that 160K Skadden job) or some Tea Party no bailouts rhetoric. Yes, this makes no sense, but it didn't make any sense back in the 70s/80s either.

When they made student loans non-dischargable, they applied it to all student loans. Therefore, I'd think they would apply PAYE repeal to all student loans as well.

I guess I don't see changing what can/can't be discharged under bankruptcy as quite analogous to killing a program where people have already acted in accordance with its terms, i.e. paid less than they would otherwise and had interest accrue. I'm sure the discharge terms changing screwed people, especially in the general sense that all future students no longer had that safety net. But I doubt there were lots of student-loan-takers who were intending to file bankruptcy and discharge their loans the following week and had that option taken away from them when the change occurred (I'd imagine there would have been some notice of the change, too). So I could certainly see PAYE getting cut and students who entered law school expecting to take advantage of it being screwed, but not so much the people already in the program.

(I think I just mean detrimental reliance, but I always had the impression that wasn't a very strong argument, so I've been trying to avoid it. Also, I suck at contracts.)

But again, that's mostly because I want to think that.

Since the bankruptcy thing has come up - I suppose in a way PAYE is an alternative to allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, in that both systems allow students to get out for under crushing debt-to-income ratios. At least with PAYE, the government gets some of it back. Conversely, you can argue that the bankruptcy discharge thing was intended as a sort of last resort, catastrophic option, and PAYE makes it more the norm to get lots of the loan forgiven. (And I'm sure schools will bill it this way...) Maybe that's just a tacit recognition of how far tuition is outstripping likely income these days? In any case, I'd be fine with cutting PAYE if discharging student loans in bankruptcy became an option again.

ETA:

timbs4339 wrote:The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

Really? I guess I would see instituting an income cap as more likely. (With possible appeals based on personal circumstances, e.g. local COL and if you have kids, that kind of thing.) Why remove GradPLUS (most of my loans are GradPLUS and I assumed this was the case for most law students)?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests