NYTimes Article about schollys

Discuss various money matters here. Loans (federal and private), scholarships, lottery winnings, or other school finance related information and queries.
westbayguy
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 6:41 pm

NYTimes Article about schollys

Postby westbayguy » Mon May 02, 2011 2:07 pm

Law Sauce wrote:
you do realize that this is simply a monetary transfer from those student who pay full tuition to those who don't, right? If *merit* scholarships were eliminated across the board, then everyone would *in theory* pay less.


TITCR

Eliminate all schollys and grants for everyone. Fed loans are available for all, up to full COA. To do so would eliminate the dilettantes who are attending because it's free and they test well. Giving scholly s to top testers is stupid anyway- they are not the ones who will have trouble getting the big law high paying jobs.

What's the relevance of what your parents make if you are going to get a 160k job at graduation regardless of your parent's success or failure? This isn't like UG where you will graduate untrained for anything and can't borrow the full COA.

Upon graduation (assuming you graduate), all would be eligible for big law, PUI, government, academia and IBR. LRAPS could then dole out funds to all who need it to allow a 10 year amortization (not 20- or 25) of their law school loans (not UG), after the student takes whatever IBR benefit is available, and after taking into consideration the student's post graduation income. If you do Big Law, you pay; do PI, sole practice, government, academia, you don't (or pay less). And if the school sets you up to be unemployed, then the school will bear the brunt of repayment. Might scare a few diploma mills out of business- a good thing.

Oh and get the feds to charge a reasonable interest rate (3.9 % in this environment) - not the extortionate 7.9% the feds charge- you don't have to gouge because defaults will be nil, or close to it. We're just subsidizing UG's who will default in droves.

Money is better directed to those who need it on a much fairer basis.

Make schools compete on class offerings, faculty and law school training rather than $ and ranking.

Will never happen, but it should.

User avatar
glitter178
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: NYTimes Article about schollys

Postby glitter178 » Mon May 02, 2011 2:10 pm

westbayguy wrote:Law Sauce wrote:
you do realize that this is simply a monetary transfer from those student who pay full tuition to those who don't, right? If *merit* scholarships were eliminated across the board, then everyone would *in theory* pay less.


TITCR

Eliminate all schollys and grants for everyone. Fed loans are available for all, up to full COA. To do so would eliminate the dilettantes who are attending because it's free and they test well. Giving scholly s to top testers is stupid anyway- they are not the ones who will have trouble getting the big law high paying jobs.

What's the relevance of what your parents make if you are going to get a 160k job at graduation regardless of your parent's success or failure? This isn't like UG where you will graduate untrained for anything and can't borrow the full COA.

Upon graduation (assuming you graduate), all would be eligible for big law, PUI, government, academia and IBR. LRAPS could then dole out funds to all who need it to allow a 10 year amortization (not 20- or 25) of their law school loans (not UG), after the student takes whatever IBR benefit is available, and after taking into consideration the student's post graduation income. If you do Big Law, you pay; do PI, sole practice, government, academia, you don't (or pay less). And if the school sets you up to be unemployed, then the school will bear the brunt of repayment. Might scare a few diploma mills out of business- a good thing.

Oh and get the feds to charge a reasonable interest rate (3.9 % in this environment) - not the extortionate 7.9% the feds charge- you don't have to gouge because defaults will be nil, or close to it. We're just subsidizing UG's who will default in droves.

Money is better directed to those who need it on a much fairer basis.

Make schools compete on class offerings, faculty and law school training rather than $ and ranking.

Will never happen, but it should.


IBTShitstorm

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: NYTimes Article about schollys

Postby acrossthelake » Mon May 02, 2011 2:12 pm

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=154485
Already a thread on this. No need to create a separate thread for it.




Return to “Financial Aid”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest