zman wrote: jbagelboy wrote: kappycaft1 wrote:
Big Dog wrote:Not me; I don;t have to come up with anything. Instead, I strongly support mandated transparency by the ABA on outcomes, particularly wrt jobs. Then, if stupid people want to waste their financial future on TT, then PT Barnum was right: a sucker is born every minute. OTOH, if I was to "sort", I'd eliminate all federal grad loans. Voila -- less law schools and fewer lawyers.
Eliminating (or at least making stricter rules for borrowing) federal graduate loans would be an ideal way to quickly countermeasure the oversupply of JDs. However, until this happens, it is irresponsible to say that transparency alone is enough. As long as the low-hanging fruit of federal loans is there for every idiot to easily pluck from the tree of tax-payers' money, we are all going to continue funding poor career choices and the devaluation of the legal market. This isn't just an issue of stupid people wasting their own money; thanks to programs like IBR and PAYE, it is now an issue of stupid people wasting tax-payers' money.
Federal loan structure needs to be seriously re-evaluated (I would support a risk/investment/employment based criterion) and law school tuition should be forced to take a huge hit. No one can dispute these points.
Eliminating ALL interest-bearing federal loans, however, for law/med/ect students is not only a terrible financial idea for the gov't its a morally bankrupt one. Who are we kidding -- first of all, private lending is risky and unsound with variable rates, and moreover, banks arent going to write $200,000 checks to broke BAs: elite education would become strictly the purvue of the extremely wealthy (and the occasional full scholarship savant) as it was 50 years ago. There needs to be a balance between the utter irresponsibility of the current loan structure (and corrupt gov't profit margin on students) and a reactionay reversal to Mad Men and aristocracy.
This guy is CLUELESS. Private lending WITHOUT goverment insured loans would collapse college tuitions.. IT would cost less than 2 thousand a year WITHOUT federally insured loans.
"elite education would become strictly the purvue of the extremely wealthy (and the occasional full scholarship savant) as it was 50 years ago."
ahahah what an idiotic statement. College was CHEAP 50 years ago, anyone could get a summer job and PAY for college. The reason so few went to college 50 years ago is because you could get almost 95% of the jobs out of high school. The quality of education at the high level was MUCH better 50 years ago. In fact the average high school grad was far more educated than the average college grad today.
Your statements do not reflect the history of private university education in the states, and you display substantial flaws in comparative reasoning. I won't resort (as you seem to have no qualms with) to name calling, but here are a few points to consider in addition to IAGF's:
1) The origins of guaranteed federal loans (as opposed to "direct") were to encourage private lenders to support low-income college and graduate education by virtually ensuring the debt with fed cash. Prior to 1965, outside of a select few merit and need scholarships, it would be impossible as a lower middle income or working class family to attend a school like Yale or Columbia. Bright students had no recourse but to choose local public institutions over private colleges, even if they were offered admission, due to tuition and living cost, since no lending system was in place, and no, you couldn't just "save up" for it (see Robert McNamara's biography where he explains why he had to attend Berkeley since Stanford would have cost several times one year of his family income in the 1930's). The impetus for the 1958 defense act and 1965 student loan bill were to alleviate some class stratification in education for talented students (and conveniently advance american science/education to compete with the soviets, which is why the first fed loans were "defense").
2) When the federal gov't switched to offering Direct loans (ford) as a primary mechanism in the early 1990's under GHW Bush because it would make the administration more money AND satisfy the requests of universities for more funding than the guarantee system -- republicans nearly killed the bill in 1994 but direct loans survived -- however, their use declined by students UNTIL 2007-2008, when guess what? All private money dried up, and the guarantors were no longer able to support college and graduate education. Now of course many private institutions have generous finaid policies, but even so the trend reversed back to higher direct loans as a result in the past few yrs. Millions of students wouldn't be able to attend university in 2009 if it weren't for the feds -- the TLS phillistine brigade could argue with some practical legitimacy that the "liberal arts" majors among these millions shouldn't have taken loans in the first place but that's a debate to itself -- and Financial instutitions aren't in the business of investing tens or hundreds of thousands into multiple low asset individuals. Nor could they be forced to.
I could not attend Columbia law this year without federal loans, nor could many of my peers - and even if all fed loans dried up tomorrow, tuition would certainly plummet down by market forces, but nowhere near quickly enough to allow for me to afford it. For the record, I did go to a private lender -- Wells Fargo -- and the best they could offer me was 20K in total at 9%. Thank god for Stafford and Perkins loans in my case!
3) Switching gears, your statement that "high schools grads in the 1950s were better educated than college grads now".. I mean.. Does that dignify a response? What does that even mean and how are you quantifying it? You are pulling that completely out of your ass. I'm sorry if your college education sucked, but mine was definitely substantive. If you are basing this off employment rates in the post-war book economy, that grads with GEDs could work at Ford plants and make a living wage, thats an erroneous comparison since the current problem lies in the globalized economic structure of the planet (wholly different from the 50s and 60s), the US population and demographic, ect ect (read some basic economic geography and history), not the quality of college instruction vis a vis our grandparents secondary schools -- moreover, today's high schools suffer from crippling demographic issues that have much less to do with "quality of education" than zoning laws and race, federal and state funding initiatives throwing money in the wrong places, income inequality, and other issues which again involve extensive separate conversations. And those jobs in your fake 5% unobtainable to high school grads just happen to be physicians, professors, attorneys, the future congressmen, CEOs, all positions of power and influence who hailed most frequently from those elite institutions of higher learning federal loan and scholarship programs opened up to large unrepresented segments of he population -- an effort that persists today. The fact that most jobs were available does not equate EQUAL jobs being available (your logical flaw) and hence, as higher education is even more essential now to procuring the best careers, providing funds for education lies at the core of the equal opportunity provisions this country claims to so virtuously represent. Suffice to say, your last paragraph is ahistorical and entirely unsubstantiated.
Lastly, federal loans made billions of dollars in revenue for the Obama administration last year. THIS is the criminal and immoral element of the loans -- the high interest and the capitalization of the interest -- but its also why they aren't going away any time soon.