Trump student loan plans Forum

[Nebby]

I love that all the "expert" analysis of why PSLF is bad is coming from people who clearly wouldn't be caught dead exceeding their pro bono requirements...

just stop. all your posts in this thread have been bad. argue the merits, but stop trying to take sly digs at posters with views that diverge from yours.

I think he's pointing out that a lot of people ITT are making generalizations about the ability of nonprofits or governments to pay more or retain talent when they themselves have zero experience necessary to even come close to making such generalizations. Credibility of speakers matters. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

[runinthefront]

I love that all the "expert" analysis of why PSLF is bad is coming from people who clearly wouldn't be caught dead exceeding their pro bono requirements...

just stop. all your posts in this thread have been bad. argue the merits, but stop trying to take sly digs at posters with views that diverge from yours.

I think he's pointing out that a lot of people ITT are making generalizations about the ability of nonprofits or governments to pay more or retain talent when they themselves have zero experience necessary to even come close to making such generalizations. Credibility of speakers matters. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

The post doesn't even hint at that though. Did you just make up this rationalization in your head?

Anyway, the justifications for PSLF as applied to the legal market when we're talking about forgiving $150K+ debt is also built on a series of assumptions and generalizations, no?

[Nebby]

I love that all the "expert" analysis of why PSLF is bad is coming from people who clearly wouldn't be caught dead exceeding their pro bono requirements...

just stop. all your posts in this thread have been bad. argue the merits, but stop trying to take sly digs at posters with views that diverge from yours.

I think he's pointing out that a lot of people ITT are making generalizations about the ability of nonprofits or governments to pay more or retain talent when they themselves have zero experience necessary to even come close to making such generalizations. Credibility of speakers matters. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

The post doesn't even hint at that though. Did you just make up this rationalization in your head?

Nope. I can read between lines, though. Perhaps you should learn to decode sarcasm. It's a useful skill!

[Nebby]

I love that all the "expert" analysis of why PSLF is bad is coming from people who clearly wouldn't be caught dead exceeding their pro bono requirements...

just stop. all your posts in this thread have been bad. argue the merits, but stop trying to take sly digs at posters with views that diverge from yours.

I think he's pointing out that a lot of people ITT are making generalizations about the ability of nonprofits or governments to pay more or retain talent when they themselves have zero experience necessary to even come close to making such generalizations. Credibility of speakers matters. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

The post doesn't even hint at that though. Did you just make up this rationalization in your head?

Anyway, the justifications for PSLF as applied to the legal market when we're talking about forgiving $150K+ debt is also built on a series of assumptions and generalizations, no?

No. Here's some legislative history:

A study released in 2005 found that only 50 percent of the people eligible for legal services (meaning they had household income for a family of four of $25,800 or less) were able to get legal help from a legal aid program. Estimates are that closer to 80 percent of low income Americans actually have unmet civil legal needs. Unfortunately, there is only one legal aid attorney available per 6,861 low-income Americans, compared to one attorney for every 525 middle-income Americans.

One key reason for this disparity is the inability of legal aid programs to recruit and retain attorneys. As law school tuition has skyrocketed, legal aid salaries have not increased in any significant way. Between 1992 and 2002, public law school tuition increased 134 percent and private law school tuition increased 76 percent.

A recent survey found that with median law school debt at $70,000 with an additional $16,000 in undergraduate debt, over 65 percent of new law school graduates were prevented from even considering a public service career. The average starting salary for a legal aid attorney is $36,000 a year.

Yet among those attorneys who do commit to a legal assistance program, 90 percent graduated with debt. The debt averaged $77,000 translating into payments of $12,000 a year. Given these financial realities, many law graduates who take positions with legal aid leave after only two or three years of service.

To address this growing challenge, the Committee includes language to build on existing loan repayment and retention programs for federal prosecutors and twenty-nine other government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Congress, by providing partial loan repayment assistance to full time civil legal assistance lawyers.

The Committee strongly supports this aid to this group of attorneys in exchange for commitments of service. It is the belief of the Committee that such a program will help ease the challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified and talented attorneys working as legal aid attorneys.

110 H. Rpt. 500

The Committee believes that this language would significantly benefit the criminal justice system by providing loan relief to prosecutors and public defenders. Both professions have recently suffered problems recruiting and retaining attorneys, in large part due to the high loan debt held by law school graduates. According to the American Bar Association, the average cumulative educational debt for law school graduates in the class of 2005 was $78,763 for those graduating from private law schools and $51,056 for those graduating from public law schools.

Further, a 2002 survey by Equal Justice Works showed that 66 percent of respondents stated that law school debt prevented them from even considering a public interest or government job. H.R. 4137 takes immediate action to alleviate that debt with the goal of recruiting and retaining more attorneys for these important professions.

110 H. Rpt. 500

[Nebby]

Here's some evidence.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

CONCLUSIONS: THE IMPACT OF THE LAW STUDENT DEBT BURDEN ON THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND SOCIETY AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM

• • Law school tuitions have skyrocketed. Since the early 1970’s, there has been a steep
  and persistent rise in the costs of legal education and in the tuitions law schools
  charge students. During the period 1992-2002, the cost of living in the U.S. has
  risen 28%, while the cost of tuition for public law schools has risen 134% (for
  residents) and 100% (for non-residents) and private law school tuition has increased
  76%. In 2002, the median law school tuitions were: $24,920 (private law school),
  $18,131 (non-resident public law school) and $9,252 (resident public law school).
  
  • The vast majority of law students borrow to finance their legal education. In 2002,
  almost 87% of law students borrowed to finance their legal education.
  
  • Law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education.
  As tuitions and other expenses of attending law school rose, more and more students
  found they needed to borrow to pay for law school. During the 1990’s, the average
  amounts students borrowed more than doubled. In the year 2002, the amount
  borrowed by many law students exceeded $80,000.
  
  • Public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or
  private sector salaries. Entry-level salaries for government and other public service
  positions have always been significantly lower than those in private practice. Over
  the years since the mid-1970’s, the median starting salaries in private practice have
  risen at a much faster pace than entry-level public service salaries. In 2002, the
  median starting salary for private practice was $90,000, while the median starting
  salary for public interest legal work was $36,000.
  
  • High student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. As
  law school tuitions and student debt have sharply escalated, fewer and fewer law
  school graduates can afford to take the comparatively low-paying public service
  positions that are available in government agencies or with prosecutor, public defender
  or legal services offices. A national study recently found that law student debt
  prevented 66% of law student respondents from considering a public service career.
  
  • Many law graduates who take public service legal jobs must leave after they gain
  two to three years of experience. Despite their high debt burden, some law
  graduates initially accept public service jobs. Some who begin careers in public
  service, and who would like to remain, leave after a few years when they find their
  debts are too severely constraining on their hopes for making ends meet, much
  less raising children or saving for retirement. These lawyers leave just at the
  point when they have gained enough experience to provide valuable services to
  their employers and clients.
  
  • Public service employers report serious difficulty recruiting and retaining lawyers.
  Public service employers, such as prosecutor or legal services offices, have
  vacancies they cannot fill because new law graduates cannot afford to work for
  them. Many public service employers report having a difficult time attracting the
  best qualified law graduates. Alternatively, those who do hire law graduates find
  that, because of educational debt payments, those whom they do hire leave just
  at the point when they provide the most valuable services.
  
  • The legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out
  from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burdens.
  Lawyers with dreams of serving their communities as prosecutors, public defenders
  or civil legal aid lawyers are unable to use their skills to do so. The profession is
  thus unable to promote and provide meaningful access to legal representation for
  all. When governments cannot hire new lawyers and/or keep experienced ones,
  governments’ ability to protect the public safety is challenged. The inability of poor
  and moderate-income persons to obtain legal assistance can result in dire consequences
  to the individuals and the communities in which they live.
  
  • Loan repayment assistance programs help law graduates take and remain in public
  service legal jobs. Loan repayment assistance programs help alleviate this problem
  by providing additional, focused financial aid to those who are committed to
  working in public service positions. In most cases, this aid is given in the form of
  a new forgivable loan to help them repay their annual educational debt. Law
  schools, states and public service employers that have created these programs
  report that they have had a positive impact on new law graduates’ ability to take
  and remain in public service jobs.
  
  • The number of LRAPs is limited. Existing LRAPs help a small percentage of law
  graduates enter and remain in public service legal careers. However, the number
  of these programs is inadequate. Many of the existing programs have very limited
  resources and are able to provide assistance to only a small number of public
  service lawyers. Therefore, federal, state and local governments, law schools,
  public service employers, bar foundations and other entities must create more
  programs or expand existing programs to support more public service lawyers.

[Nebby]

More evidence

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Equal Justice Works, the Partnership for Public Service, the National Association for Law
Placement, and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association found that among graduating
law students and public interest and government employers who responded to two
different surveys administered in 2002:

• Law school debt prevented 66% of student respondents from considering a public
  interest job or government job. This vital connection between debt and career choice
  reveals the impact of rising debt burdens.
  
  The vast majority of students borrowed for law school. 94% of law students reported
  borrowing money to attend law school.
  
  68% of public interest employers reported difficulty recruiting the attorneys they
  need. Moreover, 62% reported difficulties retaining experienced attorneys.
  
  Public interest and government salaries do not keep pace with private sector salaries.
  A majority of public interest and government employers paid their seventh year
  attorneys less than $45,000 a year ó less than half of what a similarly-experienced
  attorney typically earns at a private law firm.
  
  43% of graduate respondents show significant interest in working for the Federal
  Government. However, fewer than 3% of respondents accepted federal government
  positions.
  
  $6,000 a year in available loan repayment assistance would result in increased interest
  in a post-graduate federal government job for 83% of student respondents. Regardless
  of the job choice they made, 46% of student respondents said they would be much more
  interested, and 37% said they would be somewhat more interested in a federal
  government position if it included $6,000 per year in loan repayment assistance. This
  holds true even though the loan repayments would require a three-year employment
  commitment.

[Nebby]

http://www.abajournal.com/files/NALP_Press_Release.pdf

NALP has recently published the 2008 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report, a
biennial report that provides salary information for both entry-level and experienced attorneys at public
sector and public interest organizations.

According to this new report, the median entry-level salary for an attorney at a civil legal services
organization is $40,000; an attorney with 11-15 years of experience can expect a salary of $60,000. The
median entry-level salary for public defenders is about $47,000; with 11-15 years of experience, the
median is $75,000. The salary progression for state and local prosecuting attorneys is similar, starting in
the upper 40’s to $50,000 and progressing to $77,000 to $81,000 for those with 11-15 years of experience.
Finally, salaries for attorneys in public interest organizations with issue-driven missions — such as those
dealing with women’s or environmental issues — start at $41,000 and rise to $69,000 with 11-15 years of
experience.

This report serves as a companion piece to NALP’s annual Associate Salary Survey. Together these two
reports also provide a basis for comparing private law firm and public sector/public interest salaries. The
contrasts, though hardly a surprise, are nonetheless stark. For example, according to the NALP 2008
Associate Salary Survey, the median salary for a fifth-year associate ranges from $93,000 to over
$200,000 depending on firm size. These figures are at least double, and often more than double, what an
attorney with similar experience makes at a public interest or public sector organization according to the
2008 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report. The $160,000 starting salary found by the
Associate Salary Survey to be typical at big firms in big cities is beyond what even the most experienced
attorneys can reasonably expect at a public sector organization. Finally, it is also evident, based on a
comparison to findings in previous reports in 2004 and 2006, that salaries at public sector and public
interest organizations have increased only modestly since 2004, typically by less than $10,000, regardless
of organization type or experience.

[ballouttacontrol]

free money attracts more people to a job, news at 10. doesn't mean free money is necessary though. certainly not $30k+/yr ($300k current t14 tuition/10 yrs) for every single gov't job

not like PDs wouldn't get a million applications for every opening regardless.

[Nebby]

http://www.nalp.org/july14research

[ballouttacontrol]

sounds like you are just saying government employees should be paid more.

[Nebby]

free money attracts more people to a job, news at 10. doesn't mean free money is necessary though. certainly not $30k+/yr ($300k current t14 tuition/10 yrs) for every single gov't job

not like PDs wouldn't get a million applications for every opening regardless.

You keep saying that, but I provided a mountain of evidence to show that PI and government orgs report the inability to recruit and retain well-qualified candidates. I provided a mountain of evidence to show that many attorneys report their debt as the number one reason they do not enter into public service.

Lastly, PDs currently get tons of applications because PSLF exists. You have yet to prove to me that such would be the case in a non-PSLF world. In fact, I provided you ample evidence that in a non-PSLF world, your opinion is just wrong.

I understand if you want to disregard the mountain of evidence against your position because you simply don't care to base your opinions in reality, but at least admit to such and stop pretending you have an ounce of evidence to back up your clueless assertions.

[Nebby]

sounds like you are just saying government employees should be paid more.

If government paid at market, then we'd probably not PSLF. But that is not the case, has never been the case, and therefore likely will never be the case. Therefore, the government decided that it would create an alternative incentive program.

I can't tell if you're dumb or malicious, but I'm going to assume, judging by the fact that I've never seen you make a single coherent, well-thought-out opinion, that you're just maliciously dumb.

[Nebby]

I hope you approach your professional career in the same manner as your TLS posting.

"Your honor, I know the other side has detailed testimony and exhibits in support of their case, but just take my word for it that they're wrong."

[Npret]

If I am understanding this right. Trump loaning less money = fewer people will be able to afford LS….thus, underemployment in the legal field would drop significantly. Also, with fewer applicants schools would be forced to lower tuitions or else face classrooms filled with plenty of empty seats. Possibly?

Well there was a consistent drop in applicants from 2010 to 2013 and tuition went up, not down. So your hypothesis is probably wrong

Actually Prof.campos has done a study showing tuition dropped for about 50% of students.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=275070

[Nebby]

If I am understanding this right. Trump loaning less money = fewer people will be able to afford LS….thus, underemployment in the legal field would drop significantly. Also, with fewer applicants schools would be forced to lower tuitions or else face classrooms filled with plenty of empty seats. Possibly?

Well there was a consistent drop in applicants from 2010 to 2013 and tuition went up, not down. So your hypothesis is probably wrong

Actually Prof.campos has done a study showing tuition dropped for about 50% of students.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=275070

Please cite me to the published study or at the very least send me a dropbox of your personal copy

[Desert Fox]

I'm sure legal debt does make it harder to recruit. But the solution isn't to write them a blank check for unlimited debt. It's a bad solution.

[Npret]

If I am understanding this right. Trump loaning less money = fewer people will be able to afford LS….thus, underemployment in the legal field would drop significantly. Also, with fewer applicants schools would be forced to lower tuitions or else face classrooms filled with plenty of empty seats. Possibly?

Well there was a consistent drop in applicants from 2010 to 2013 and tuition went up, not down. So your hypothesis is probably wrong

Actually Prof.campos has done a study showing tuition dropped for about 50% of students.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=275070

Please cite me to the published study or at the very least send me a dropbox of your personal copy

I PMes him my email and he sent it to me. You can do the same. I don't want to distribute it without his permission.
Here is what he said in the thread:

Law school tuition is falling rapidly for about half of all students
Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:44 am

This is a FYI for current and prospective applicants. I just finished a study of changes in law school tuition between 2011 and 2015.

Bottom line: Although sticker tuition has gone up 16% during this time, effective tuition (tuition minus discounts) is down an average of 10.6% at all schools. This figure rises to 12.5% if you exclude elite schools, which collectively have raised tuition in real terms by 9%.

These are averages: at many schools outside the top 50, real tuition is down 20% or 30% or even 40% from 2011. (Note these are 2015 numbers as 2016 numbers on discounting won't be available until this fall). The complicating factor is that this massive increase in the discount rate is benefiting only about half of all students: those getting significant discounts off sticker (about 35% of students are still paying sticker, and another 15% or so are getting small discounts). The differences between what the two halves of the class pay to go to the same law school have often become enormous.

Anyway there's a real price war going on out there now.

[Desert Fox]

And this subsidy can be outrageous. It's nearly 40k a year for people going to school now. That's a huge subsidy for PI/gov jobs.

Obama's 57k cap is pretty fair.

[ballouttacontrol]

sounds like you are just saying government employees should be paid more.

If government paid at market, then we'd probably not PSLF. But that is not the case, has never been the case, and therefore likely will never be the case. Therefore, the government decided that it would create an alternative incentive program.

I can't tell if you're dumb or malicious, but I'm going to assume, judging by the fact that I've never seen you make a single coherent, well-thought-out opinion, that you're just maliciously dumb.

the fact that you think "market" pay is a number other than the number arrived at by the market evidences that you are the dumb

your "evidence" says that law school debt was a reason for some people not considering PI jobs. And?

Law school debt is also the reason I'm not a high school football coach yet.

on the other side of the equation is the tens of thousands of law grads working in private practice for $20k/year, as barristas, etc

[cavalier1138]

I love that all the "expert" analysis of why PSLF is bad is coming from people who clearly wouldn't be caught dead exceeding their pro bono requirements...

just stop. all your posts in this thread have been bad. argue the merits, but stop trying to take sly digs at posters with views that diverge from yours.

I think he's pointing out that a lot of people ITT are making generalizations about the ability of nonprofits or governments to pay more or retain talent when they themselves have zero experience necessary to even come close to making such generalizations. Credibility of speakers matters. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

The post doesn't even hint at that though. Did you just make up this rationalization in your head?

Nope. I can read between lines, though. Perhaps you should learn to decode sarcasm. It's a useful skill!

Yeah, this. And it wasn't really between the lines. People are commenting on how unnecessary PSLF is and citing to this imaginary ability of PI orgs to double their salaries overnight. The merits of that argument are non-existent, largely because the posters making them clearly haven't set foot in a PI organization, much less tried funding one.

If we want our government and public interest attorneys to be of the best quality, we need to make those positions feasible for the best attorneys. That means offering students with too much debt a feasible path to paying their loans off while in public service. I have no idea why people think that having lower standards for attorneys working in the positions that have the most day-to-day impact on society is a good thing.

[ballouttacontrol]

If we want our government and public interest attorneys to be of the best quality, we need to make those positions feasible for the best attorneys. That means offering students with too much debt a feasible path to paying their loans off while in public service. I have no idea why people think that having lower standards for attorneys working in the positions that have the most day-to-day impact on society is a good thing.

some of the best PDs I've seen were TTTT grads. why should the government pay for your choice to have your cake and eat it too by choosing to go to an Ivy League school (which, as I've heard, most PDs dont give a damn about) and then being a local PD?

[cavalier1138]

If we want our government and public interest attorneys to be of the best quality, we need to make those positions feasible for the best attorneys. That means offering students with too much debt a feasible path to paying their loans off while in public service. I have no idea why people think that having lower standards for attorneys working in the positions that have the most day-to-day impact on society is a good thing.

some of the best PDs I've seen were TTTT grads. why should the government pay for your choice to have your cake and eat it too by choosing to go to an Ivy League school (which, as I've heard, most PDs dont give a damb about) and then being a PD?

Why should anyone continue responding to the strawman argument that everyone planning on using PSLF is going to be a PD or DOJ employee? It doesn't only apply to government workers.

Also, hilarious that you're using the Ivy League to denote law school prestige. Bro, do you even T13?

[Nebby]

sounds like you are just saying government employees should be paid more.

If government paid at market, then we'd probably not PSLF. But that is not the case, has never been the case, and therefore likely will never be the case. Therefore, the government decided that it would create an alternative incentive program.

I can't tell if you're dumb or malicious, but I'm going to assume, judging by the fact that I've never seen you make a single coherent, well-thought-out opinion, that you're just maliciously dumb.

the fact that you think "market" pay is a number other than the number arrived at by the market evidences that you are the dumb

your "evidence" says that law school debt was a reason for some people not considering PI jobs. And?

Law school debt is also the reason I'm not a high school football coach yet.

on the other side of the equation is the tens of thousands of law grads working in private practice for $20k/year, as barristas, etc

Damn you're dumb. Painfully, mind numbingly dumb. I expect this level of low-IQ trolling in the Lounge, but I thought the topics were at least respectable.

[ballouttacontrol]

If we want our government and public interest attorneys to be of the best quality, we need to make those positions feasible for the best attorneys. That means offering students with too much debt a feasible path to paying their loans off while in public service. I have no idea why people think that having lower standards for attorneys working in the positions that have the most day-to-day impact on society is a good thing.

some of the best PDs I've seen were TTTT grads. why should the government pay for your choice to have your cake and eat it too by choosing to go to an Ivy League school (which, as I've heard, most PDs dont give a damb about) and then being a PD?

Why should anyone continue responding to the strawman argument that everyone planning on using PSLF is going to be a PD or DOJ employee? It doesn't only apply to government workers.

Also, hilarious that you're using the Ivy League to denote law school prestige. Bro, do you even T13?

because PDs are, sometimes, very low paid, and are something I'm familiar with. I also think there's a lot more government lawyers than legal aids. And government lawyers are probably the ones who most ppl have the biggest problem with getting a $30k+ per year subsidy when they already make 6 figs or close to it

If you get on board with no subsidies for govt lawyers, I'll get on board with legal aids living close to poverty getting some help

[ballouttacontrol]

Damn you're dumb. Painfully, mind numbingly dumb. I expect this level of low-IQ trolling in the Lounge, but I thought the topics were at least respectable.

k