Trump student loan plans

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Rahviveh » Tue May 23, 2017 11:14 pm

Nebby wrote:
Npret wrote:In NYC city college law school tuition is insanely low and PI focused. So it's possible for school to not cost so much.
However it isn't beating any competition.
Also where is the evidence that PSLF improved things for government or not for profits? It's weird because PSLF was not geared toward lawyers with massive debt. My understanding is that it was for teachers, nurses, etc.

It's geared towards all 501c3 orgs


so you can work at the DMV and get loan forgiveness. doesnt sound like a good use of resources.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Tue May 23, 2017 11:35 pm

I went to find the language in the Education Department proposal and here's the part about PSLF:

While retaining teacher loan forgiveness programs in order to incentivize more high-quality
teachers to teach in high-need schools and subjects, the Budget proposes eliminating inefficient
subsidies to help put the Nation on a more sustainable fiscal path and prioritize expedited debt
relief for undergraduate borrowers. These proposals include eliminating Public Service Loan
Forgiveness, Subsidized Stafford loans, and the payment of Account Maintenance Fees to
guaranty agencies. As a result of these proposals, all new undergraduate student loans would
be unsubsidized. These proposals would also help simplify the student loan programs.

All policies for student loans would apply to loans originated on or after July 1, 2018, with an
exception for students who borrowed their first loans prior to July 1, 2018, and who are
borrowing to complete their current course of study. These policies together would save
approximately $143 billion over 10 years.


The last part looks like a grandfathering clause but it's not as clear as we'd like.

Full proposal here:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budg ... ummary.pdf

dixiecupdrinking

Gold
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Tue May 23, 2017 11:51 pm

Johann wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:Does anyone dispute that the root problem here is that school is insanely, unconsionably expensive?

PSLF is a fig leaf to the victims of the higher education scam. A start to a real solution would involve dismantling the shittiest schools in this country and imposing strict standards for tuition, executive compensation, etc. on the remainder if they want to be eligible for federal student loans. As it stands there is almost no incentive for schools not to increase costs every single year.

It's ass backwards to go after the people who have to borrow absurd amounts of money to attend these places, rather than the people who are creating a generation of indentured servants who will tithe to Sallie Mae until they're retired.

if govt just provided some free or minimal cost institutions (you know the way state schools used to be), none of this should be a problem. the expensive schools would be clowned by competition. instead, this is the republican dream where the govt steps out of the picture as an education provider, and what do you know, costs skyrocket.

I agree, except it's more like the government steps out of the picture and then re-emerges to subsidize the industry in a roundabout, inefficient way that costs way more and gets worse results for all of the important stakeholders. Pretty much like healthcare.

User avatar
Toni V

Bronze
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Toni V » Tue May 23, 2017 11:55 pm

Nebby wrote:
Toni V wrote: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

Possibly, but to me it if Trump makes securing loans harder the $$ for law school for many will not be available. Once the easy loan component is disrupted schools will have a difficult time filling seats unless they lower tuition.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Tue May 23, 2017 11:57 pm

Toni V wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Toni V wrote: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

Possibly, but to me it if Trump makes securing loans harder the $$ for law school for many will not be available. Once the easy loan component is disrupted schools will have a difficult time filling seats unless they lower tuition.

Perhaps TTT and TTTT, yes. But less applicants would mean lower admission standards and plenty of rich kids or access to 12% private loans would still mean the majority of schools could fill seats. With the added benefit of much more private debt that's literally impossible to get rid of or obtain remotely favorable repayment options (compared to current federal loans).

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Npret » Wed May 24, 2017 12:12 am

Rahviveh wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Npret wrote:In NYC city college law school tuition is insanely low and PI focused. So it's possible for school to not cost so much.
However it isn't beating any competition.
Also where is the evidence that PSLF improved things for government or not for profits? It's weird because PSLF was not geared toward lawyers with massive debt. My understanding is that it was for teachers, nurses, etc.

It's geared towards all 501c3 orgs


so you can work at the DMV and get loan forgiveness. doesnt sound like a good use of resources.


Someone mentioned a lack of state run substitutes to train grads for not for profits that somehow would compete with other schools. Just gave an example in regard to that.
I have never had loans so I have nothing to add only that law schiool should not cost so much.

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby elendinel » Wed May 24, 2017 1:11 am

Toni V wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Toni V wrote: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

Possibly, but to me it if Trump makes securing loans harder the $$ for law school for many will not be available. Once the easy loan component is disrupted schools will have a difficult time filling seats unless they lower tuition.


For the really bad schools maybe, but I think the gross oversaturation of law students in the job market is already forcing many of these schools to lower tuition to fill seats/causing them to shutter anyway (because people are no longer willing to elect the "easy loan component" if their chances of getting a job after are no better than they are without the degree).

Meanwhile the top 50 or so schools (maybe even top 100?), even with declining applicants, can still afford to charge full price for tuition because the effects of oversaturation don't affect them as much as they affect all the other schools, and because the shuttering of the really bad schools will push more applicants to have to apply to those top 50-10 schools if they want a law career, period. It's also common for these top 50 or so schools to already have a lot of well-off students in the class, meaning that the rises in tuition may still hurt, but may not be prohibitive for the majority of their students for a long time. So I'd suspect that by the time tuition actually goes up so high that schools need to lower tuition to address affordability, specifically, to survive, most low-income students and even many middle-class students will have already been priced out of law school for years.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed May 24, 2017 6:20 am

Rahviveh wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Npret wrote:In NYC city college law school tuition is insanely low and PI focused. So it's possible for school to not cost so much.
However it isn't beating any competition.
Also where is the evidence that PSLF improved things for government or not for profits? It's weird because PSLF was not geared toward lawyers with massive debt. My understanding is that it was for teachers, nurses, etc.

It's geared towards all 501c3 orgs


so you can work at the DMV and get loan forgiveness. doesnt sound like a good use of resources.

Pretty sure most people working at the DMV don't have $200k+ in debt though.

nouseforaname123

Bronze
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed May 24, 2017 7:08 am

Nebby wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
elendinel wrote:
runinthefront wrote:PSLF had law students taking on $300k of debt at UChicago to work as a DA in Minnesota in mind, particularly when the market's already saturated with lawyers? Perfectly good lawyers from other schools? What's wrong with just going to a strong regional school for a fraction of the cost that would give you the same outcome?


There's nothing wrong with it. There's also nothing wrong with PI employers wanting people who are T13-trained working in their offices rather than people who went to regional schools/other budget schools. Or wanting people who could succeed at T13 schools over people who went to regional/other budget schools. Just like some students going to regional schools may be just as qualified as T13 students for biglaw, but that doesn't mean biglaw doesn't have its reasons for choosing to pick from the T13 barrel more than the regional barrel. Or really, from any good private school over the often-more-questionable regional options.

PLSF isn't just about paying kids to get fancy degrees; it's about incentivizing people with those fancy degrees to then come back to the PI industry and put them to use. It doesn't matter that Suzy could have gone to NYLS instead of Fordham; it matters that a Fordham grad is more likely to be qualified for top-notch work than a NYLS grad is, but is less likely to go into PI because their qualifications also likely put them in the running for better-paying careers. And I'd say having qualified applicants in PI is "a compelling use of public money" (or as compelling a use as most everything else we spend public money on these days). Again, we're not just talking about legal jobs (if for whatever reason you don't think hiring ADAs/PDs/AUSAs/etc. with the best education helps the public); we're also talking about people who will be doing scientific, medical, and other work in the PI sector that will be used to serve the public in the future.


1. Is there any reason to believe that PLSF has led to better outcomes for the client PI-organizations? From a legal context, diminishing returns likely exist and "better qualified" does not necessarily result in better outcomes.

2. Specific to the legal profession, if PI orgs want better qualified professionals they can raise pay by becoming more efficient, raising more money or asking the tax payers of the relevant jurisdiction for more tax funds. As it is, PLSF acts as a subsidy for non-federal employers buried in federal budget.

3. In an environment of many pressing needs (especially for low socioeconomic status citizens), there is something plainly offensive about (a) potential professional high-income earners declining to fully utilize their tax-payer subsidized education and taking a further tax payer subsidy (potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) and (b) "public service minded" individuals needlessly further stressing the finances of the public. The program should be more targeted at truly underserved PI type areas (medicine and education in poor rural and urban areas in industries where there truly is an undersupply of labor, etc...).

4. Even if you ignore the above, it is basically undisputed at this time that government involvement in the financing of higher education has created/allowed/led to runaway inflation in higher education in this country. Even if there is some tangible benefit to the public from government subsidies of education and programs like PLSF, I'm not sure it's worth all of the other costs imposed on the public (in particular the higher costs everyone else has to bear for education).

Amazingly bad post and anon abuse. Anon is to protect your identity from personal info, not from terrible opinions. Nonprofits and governments can't simply pay more on demand and they'll never be competitive with firms. Both rely on a revenue stream that are fundamentally different than firms. Your second suggestion indicates you are woefully ignorant on the subject. Furthermore, isn't loan forgiveness a benefit in another name? Let's say we get rid of PSLF and federal salaries by 20k. Over 10 years, what is the difference between 200k in income and 200k in debt forgiveness?


It was an accidental use of anon. My bad.

1. If government and nonprofits can't pay more on demand, it is because they cannot afford it (obviously). How is it a good thing for the federal government to subsidize non-federal employers that cannot afford their employees when it isn't obvious that the subsidy is needed across all PI organizations that are receiving the subsidy? To be clear, there were some PI areas that had trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers, including professional workers. But the vast majority of PLSF jobs filled by professionals did not have that problem.

2. There are significant differences between a contracted benefit (PLSF) and a salary raise of $20k/year:

A. The executive and legislative members making the decision to raise salaries would see it show up in the federal budget rather than kicking the expense to the future where some other elected official will have to deal with the cost. Also, the costs would be easier to track and understand. ETA: As it stands, Bush 43 enacted PSLF, and both of the Obama and Trump admins have postured that the program is unaffordable in its current form.

B. All else being equal, there is a time value component to money making the salary more valuable.

C. If the government finds out it can't afford higher salaries it could lay people off rather than creating what is now an untouchable contract right.

D. The government would be collecting income and FICA taxes on the salary, reducing the net cost of the salary increase to the government.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Wed May 24, 2017 7:38 am

nouseforaname123 wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
elendinel wrote:
runinthefront wrote:PSLF had law students taking on $300k of debt at UChicago to work as a DA in Minnesota in mind, particularly when the market's already saturated with lawyers? Perfectly good lawyers from other schools? What's wrong with just going to a strong regional school for a fraction of the cost that would give you the same outcome?


There's nothing wrong with it. There's also nothing wrong with PI employers wanting people who are T13-trained working in their offices rather than people who went to regional schools/other budget schools. Or wanting people who could succeed at T13 schools over people who went to regional/other budget schools. Just like some students going to regional schools may be just as qualified as T13 students for biglaw, but that doesn't mean biglaw doesn't have its reasons for choosing to pick from the T13 barrel more than the regional barrel. Or really, from any good private school over the often-more-questionable regional options.

PLSF isn't just about paying kids to get fancy degrees; it's about incentivizing people with those fancy degrees to then come back to the PI industry and put them to use. It doesn't matter that Suzy could have gone to NYLS instead of Fordham; it matters that a Fordham grad is more likely to be qualified for top-notch work than a NYLS grad is, but is less likely to go into PI because their qualifications also likely put them in the running for better-paying careers. And I'd say having qualified applicants in PI is "a compelling use of public money" (or as compelling a use as most everything else we spend public money on these days). Again, we're not just talking about legal jobs (if for whatever reason you don't think hiring ADAs/PDs/AUSAs/etc. with the best education helps the public); we're also talking about people who will be doing scientific, medical, and other work in the PI sector that will be used to serve the public in the future.


1. Is there any reason to believe that PLSF has led to better outcomes for the client PI-organizations? From a legal context, diminishing returns likely exist and "better qualified" does not necessarily result in better outcomes.

2. Specific to the legal profession, if PI orgs want better qualified professionals they can raise pay by becoming more efficient, raising more money or asking the tax payers of the relevant jurisdiction for more tax funds. As it is, PLSF acts as a subsidy for non-federal employers buried in federal budget.

3. In an environment of many pressing needs (especially for low socioeconomic status citizens), there is something plainly offensive about (a) potential professional high-income earners declining to fully utilize their tax-payer subsidized education and taking a further tax payer subsidy (potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) and (b) "public service minded" individuals needlessly further stressing the finances of the public. The program should be more targeted at truly underserved PI type areas (medicine and education in poor rural and urban areas in industries where there truly is an undersupply of labor, etc...).

4. Even if you ignore the above, it is basically undisputed at this time that government involvement in the financing of higher education has created/allowed/led to runaway inflation in higher education in this country. Even if there is some tangible benefit to the public from government subsidies of education and programs like PLSF, I'm not sure it's worth all of the other costs imposed on the public (in particular the higher costs everyone else has to bear for education).

Amazingly bad post and anon abuse. Anon is to protect your identity from personal info, not from terrible opinions. Nonprofits and governments can't simply pay more on demand and they'll never be competitive with firms. Both rely on a revenue stream that are fundamentally different than firms. Your second suggestion indicates you are woefully ignorant on the subject. Furthermore, isn't loan forgiveness a benefit in another name? Let's say we get rid of PSLF and federal salaries by 20k. Over 10 years, what is the difference between 200k in income and 200k in debt forgiveness?


It was an accidental use of anon. My bad.

1. If government and nonprofits can't pay more on demand, it is because they cannot afford it (obviously). How is it a good thing for the federal government to subsidize non-federal employers that cannot afford their employees when it isn't obvious that the subsidy is needed across all PI organizations that are receiving the subsidy? To be clear, there were some PI areas that had trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers, including professional workers. But the vast majority of PLSF jobs filled by professionals did not have that problem.

2. There are significant differences between a contracted benefit (PLSF) and a salary raise of $20k/year:

A. The executive and legislative members making the decision to raise salaries would see it show up in the federal budget rather than kicking the expense to the future where some other elected official will have to deal with the cost. Also, the costs would be easier to track and understand.

B. All else being equal, there is a time value component to money making the salary more valuable.

C. If the government finds out it can't afford higher salaries it could lay people off rather than creating what is now an untouchable contract right.

D. The government would be collecting income and FICA taxes on the salary, reducing the net cost of the salary increase to the government.

Do you work on government or nonprofit? You're making a lot of sweeping generalizations about what they can do and I'm just wondering if it comes from experience or not

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby elendinel » Wed May 24, 2017 8:04 am

nouseforaname123 wrote:1. If government and nonprofits can't pay more on demand, it is because they cannot afford it (obviously). How is it a good thing for the federal government to subsidize non-federal employers that cannot afford their employees when it isn't obvious that the subsidy is needed across all PI organizations that are receiving the subsidy?


Because it's most likely cheaper to subsidize through PSLF (even with crazy tuition costs) than it is to give every qualifying organization enough capital to be able to offer their various employees $20k/year more in salary/benefits. Because not everyone in PI needs or elects to get PSLF, but everyone would need to get that pay bump if PI wanted to retain its current workforce. The only way in which not helping these organizations staff themselves is a bad thing is if you're contending that most government/non-profit positions that require a degree of some sort provide no intrinsic value to the community.

To be clear, there were some PI areas that had trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers, including professional workers. But the vast majority of PLSF jobs filled by professionals did not have that problem.


What PI areas do not have any trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers?

If the government finds out it can't afford higher salaries it could lay people off rather than creating what is now an untouchable contract right.


Because laying off people in a sector that has so much trouble with longterm staffing that it needed something like PSLF to retain workers is the best way to retain workers?

Here's an example: Legal Aid pays s**t because they don't get a lot of money and because their caseload is so high volume in comparison to the number of staff they can retain that they have to value quantity of personnel over paying them what they deserve (which is the quandry facing most PI organizations). If they fire half their staff so that the other half can get pay increases, how do they then afford to pay to replace the staff they lost? If they don't replace that staff and just tell people to "get more efficient," how do you convince people to then work there, even with a large pay bump, if you have to also warn them that they're also going to have to deal with 100+ more cases on their docket than they would have before, because there is now less staff to deal with the work? How many people would actually think taking on a docket of 500-600+ cases if LAS offered you a $80k salary in NYC, no PSLF/similar program, is a good deal when comparing it to working in the private sector in NYC? How do you, in particular, convince students whose credentials qualify them for those other opportunities (biglaw, etc.) to forego those opportunities to work at LAS? Because again, PSLF isn't just about helping PI hire, it's about helping PI attract quality talent.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Wed May 24, 2017 8:12 am

PSLF is also about retention. Well qualified people are more likely to stay and not go into the private sector if they know they get a comparable benefit.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed May 24, 2017 8:15 am

plenty of good lawyers would still choose government over private firms without PSLF for all the reasons they already do. Pay in government is on par with MidLaw in most places, with a hell of a lot better hours. Fuck, isn't the stat on TLS that 50% of lawyers don't get law jobs currently? You guys think that if all of a sudden PSLF went away the private sector would just open up and take swathes more grads so that State school grads can start going to biglaw instead of govt?

Fuck subsidizing lawyers who choose this greedy profession in the first place, and then at a school that costs 300k. and then expect other people to pay for them when they go get a cushy 9-5.

Shit organizations paying $42k would need to get their shit figured out or accept they will get the lowest tier applicants. I suspect they already do though. I doubt many t14ers are taking $44k to be a Philly PD when plenty of other PDs start nearly double that


also, drawing the diving line for nearly free school at "govt or 501c3" is n arbitrary and retarded. if we want to subsidize a teacher who takes out $200k to go to shit liberal arts college, fine, but there's no reason we should at all subsidizing the majority of shit government or shit nonprofits
Last edited by ballouttacontrol on Wed May 24, 2017 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Wed May 24, 2017 8:22 am

ballouttacontrol wrote:plenty of good lawyers would still choose government over private firms without PSLF for all the reasons they already do. Pay in government is on par with MidLaw in most places, with a hell of a lot better hours. Fuck, isn't the stat on TLS that 50% of lawyers don't get law jobs currently? You guys think that if all of a sudden PSLF went away the private sector would just open up and take swathes more grads so that State school grads can start going to biglaw instead of govt?

Fuck subsidizing lawyers who choose this greedy profession in the first place, and then at a school that costs 300k. and then expect other people to pay for them when they go get a cushy 9-5.

Shit organizations paying $42k would need to get their shit figured out.

PSLF isn't a lawyer only program. It's for all nonprofit employees. Second, as has been stated multiple times, nonprofit organizations can't simply raise their salaries because they are heavily dependent on donors and funding issues.

Do you realize that, at least in the nonprofit world, a "cushy 9 to 5" comes in at 1/3 or less of the salary of a first year associate? And for many nonprofits, the hours are more than 9 to 5. Impact litigation organizations, public defenders, and prosecutors all have to put in more time than 40/wk and make 1/3 of what their classmates make.

User avatar
Pokemon

Gold
Posts: 3527
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Pokemon » Wed May 24, 2017 8:23 am

Nebby wrote:
Toni V wrote: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



Not sure if this shows the entire image. Thought tuition went up but school became more generous with scholarships.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Wed May 24, 2017 8:26 am

Pokemon wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Toni V wrote: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



Not sure if this shows the entire image. Thought tuition went up but school became more generous with scholarships.

The things we know: (1) applicants went down drastically from 2010 to 2013; (2) tuition did not go down; (3) most class sizes within the T14 and T1/2 schools saw slight reductions but not that much.

I don't know how we can quantify whether schools were more generous with scholarships as that info is not reported. (that I know of anyway)

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed May 24, 2017 8:27 am

Nebby wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:plenty of good lawyers would still choose government over private firms without PSLF for all the reasons they already do. Pay in government is on par with MidLaw in most places, with a hell of a lot better hours. Fuck, isn't the stat on TLS that 50% of lawyers don't get law jobs currently? You guys think that if all of a sudden PSLF went away the private sector would just open up and take swathes more grads so that State school grads can start going to biglaw instead of govt?

Fuck subsidizing lawyers who choose this greedy profession in the first place, and then at a school that costs 300k. and then expect other people to pay for them when they go get a cushy 9-5.

Shit organizations paying $42k would need to get their shit figured out.

PSLF isn't a lawyer only program. It's for all nonprofit employees. Second, as has been stated multiple times, nonprofit organizations can't simply raise their salaries because they are heavily dependent on donors and funding issues.

Do you realize that, at least in the nonprofit world, a "cushy 9 to 5" comes in at 1/3 or less of the salary of a first year associate? And for many nonprofits, the hours are more than 9 to 5. Impact litigation organizations, public defenders, and prosecutors all have to put in more time than 40/wk and make 1/3 of what their classmates make.


see my addition w/r/t non-lawyers.

are we now just pretending the only lawyers we care about are t14ers? b/c at most top 100 or so schools, which are mostly all very well respected in their own states, it's a pretty slim minority that get jobs paying near 100k.

And, at least at my t14, the only kids I knew who went to non-profits over biglaw were already uber rich anyways. I doubt lack of PSLF is going to make some rich t14 kid choose to go slave away in biglaw versus sniff their farts in an art museum.
Last edited by ballouttacontrol on Wed May 24, 2017 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Wed May 24, 2017 8:29 am

ballouttacontrol wrote:
Nebby wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:plenty of good lawyers would still choose government over private firms without PSLF for all the reasons they already do. Pay in government is on par with MidLaw in most places, with a hell of a lot better hours. Fuck, isn't the stat on TLS that 50% of lawyers don't get law jobs currently? You guys think that if all of a sudden PSLF went away the private sector would just open up and take swathes more grads so that State school grads can start going to biglaw instead of govt?

Fuck subsidizing lawyers who choose this greedy profession in the first place, and then at a school that costs 300k. and then expect other people to pay for them when they go get a cushy 9-5.

Shit organizations paying $42k would need to get their shit figured out.

PSLF isn't a lawyer only program. It's for all nonprofit employees. Second, as has been stated multiple times, nonprofit organizations can't simply raise their salaries because they are heavily dependent on donors and funding issues.

Do you realize that, at least in the nonprofit world, a "cushy 9 to 5" comes in at 1/3 or less of the salary of a first year associate? And for many nonprofits, the hours are more than 9 to 5. Impact litigation organizations, public defenders, and prosecutors all have to put in more time than 40/wk and make 1/3 of what their classmates make.


see my addition w/r/t non-lawyers.

are we now just pretending the only lawyers we care about are t14ers? b/c at most top 100 or so schools, which are mostly all very well respected in their own states, it's a pretty slim minority that get jobs paying near 100k.

Would you prefer less qualified applicants work in government?

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed May 24, 2017 8:32 am

Nebby wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:
Nebby wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:plenty of good lawyers would still choose government over private firms without PSLF for all the reasons they already do. Pay in government is on par with MidLaw in most places, with a hell of a lot better hours. Fuck, isn't the stat on TLS that 50% of lawyers don't get law jobs currently? You guys think that if all of a sudden PSLF went away the private sector would just open up and take swathes more grads so that State school grads can start going to biglaw instead of govt?

Fuck subsidizing lawyers who choose this greedy profession in the first place, and then at a school that costs 300k. and then expect other people to pay for them when they go get a cushy 9-5.

Shit organizations paying $42k would need to get their shit figured out.

PSLF isn't a lawyer only program. It's for all nonprofit employees. Second, as has been stated multiple times, nonprofit organizations can't simply raise their salaries because they are heavily dependent on donors and funding issues.

Do you realize that, at least in the nonprofit world, a "cushy 9 to 5" comes in at 1/3 or less of the salary of a first year associate? And for many nonprofits, the hours are more than 9 to 5. Impact litigation organizations, public defenders, and prosecutors all have to put in more time than 40/wk and make 1/3 of what their classmates make.


see my addition w/r/t non-lawyers.

are we now just pretending the only lawyers we care about are t14ers? b/c at most top 100 or so schools, which are mostly all very well respected in their own states, it's a pretty slim minority that get jobs paying near 100k.

Would you prefer less qualified applicants work in government?


yes I'm fine if the Post Office counsel are Ohio State grads instead of Harvard grads... the horror....

nouseforaname123

Bronze
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed May 24, 2017 9:02 am

Nebby wrote:
nouseforaname123 wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
elendinel wrote:
runinthefront wrote:PSLF had law students taking on $300k of debt at UChicago to work as a DA in Minnesota in mind, particularly when the market's already saturated with lawyers? Perfectly good lawyers from other schools? What's wrong with just going to a strong regional school for a fraction of the cost that would give you the same outcome?


There's nothing wrong with it. There's also nothing wrong with PI employers wanting people who are T13-trained working in their offices rather than people who went to regional schools/other budget schools. Or wanting people who could succeed at T13 schools over people who went to regional/other budget schools. Just like some students going to regional schools may be just as qualified as T13 students for biglaw, but that doesn't mean biglaw doesn't have its reasons for choosing to pick from the T13 barrel more than the regional barrel. Or really, from any good private school over the often-more-questionable regional options.

PLSF isn't just about paying kids to get fancy degrees; it's about incentivizing people with those fancy degrees to then come back to the PI industry and put them to use. It doesn't matter that Suzy could have gone to NYLS instead of Fordham; it matters that a Fordham grad is more likely to be qualified for top-notch work than a NYLS grad is, but is less likely to go into PI because their qualifications also likely put them in the running for better-paying careers. And I'd say having qualified applicants in PI is "a compelling use of public money" (or as compelling a use as most everything else we spend public money on these days). Again, we're not just talking about legal jobs (if for whatever reason you don't think hiring ADAs/PDs/AUSAs/etc. with the best education helps the public); we're also talking about people who will be doing scientific, medical, and other work in the PI sector that will be used to serve the public in the future.


1. Is there any reason to believe that PLSF has led to better outcomes for the client PI-organizations? From a legal context, diminishing returns likely exist and "better qualified" does not necessarily result in better outcomes.

2. Specific to the legal profession, if PI orgs want better qualified professionals they can raise pay by becoming more efficient, raising more money or asking the tax payers of the relevant jurisdiction for more tax funds. As it is, PLSF acts as a subsidy for non-federal employers buried in federal budget.

3. In an environment of many pressing needs (especially for low socioeconomic status citizens), there is something plainly offensive about (a) potential professional high-income earners declining to fully utilize their tax-payer subsidized education and taking a further tax payer subsidy (potentially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) and (b) "public service minded" individuals needlessly further stressing the finances of the public. The program should be more targeted at truly underserved PI type areas (medicine and education in poor rural and urban areas in industries where there truly is an undersupply of labor, etc...).

4. Even if you ignore the above, it is basically undisputed at this time that government involvement in the financing of higher education has created/allowed/led to runaway inflation in higher education in this country. Even if there is some tangible benefit to the public from government subsidies of education and programs like PLSF, I'm not sure it's worth all of the other costs imposed on the public (in particular the higher costs everyone else has to bear for education).

Amazingly bad post and anon abuse. Anon is to protect your identity from personal info, not from terrible opinions. Nonprofits and governments can't simply pay more on demand and they'll never be competitive with firms. Both rely on a revenue stream that are fundamentally different than firms. Your second suggestion indicates you are woefully ignorant on the subject. Furthermore, isn't loan forgiveness a benefit in another name? Let's say we get rid of PSLF and federal salaries by 20k. Over 10 years, what is the difference between 200k in income and 200k in debt forgiveness?


It was an accidental use of anon. My bad.

1. If government and nonprofits can't pay more on demand, it is because they cannot afford it (obviously). How is it a good thing for the federal government to subsidize non-federal employers that cannot afford their employees when it isn't obvious that the subsidy is needed across all PI organizations that are receiving the subsidy? To be clear, there were some PI areas that had trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers, including professional workers. But the vast majority of PLSF jobs filled by professionals did not have that problem.

2. There are significant differences between a contracted benefit (PLSF) and a salary raise of $20k/year:

A. The executive and legislative members making the decision to raise salaries would see it show up in the federal budget rather than kicking the expense to the future where some other elected official will have to deal with the cost. Also, the costs would be easier to track and understand.

B. All else being equal, there is a time value component to money making the salary more valuable.

C. If the government finds out it can't afford higher salaries it could lay people off rather than creating what is now an untouchable contract right.

D. The government would be collecting income and FICA taxes on the salary, reducing the net cost of the salary increase to the government.

Do you work on government or nonprofit? You're making a lot of sweeping generalizations about what they can do and I'm just wondering if it comes from experience or not


I have previously worked for the government (though not as a lawyer). What generalizations am I making that you find unreasonable?

nouseforaname123

Bronze
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed May 24, 2017 9:13 am

elendinel wrote:
nouseforaname123 wrote:1. If government and nonprofits can't pay more on demand, it is because they cannot afford it (obviously). How is it a good thing for the federal government to subsidize non-federal employers that cannot afford their employees when it isn't obvious that the subsidy is needed across all PI organizations that are receiving the subsidy?


Because it's most likely cheaper to subsidize through PSLF (even with crazy tuition costs) than it is to give every qualifying organization enough capital to be able to offer their various employees $20k/year more in salary/benefits. Because not everyone in PI needs or elects to get PSLF, but everyone would need to get that pay bump if PI wanted to retain its current workforce. The only way in which not helping these organizations staff themselves is a bad thing is if you're contending that most government/non-profit positions that require a degree of some sort provide no intrinsic value to the community.

To be clear, there were some PI areas that had trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers, including professional workers. But the vast majority of PLSF jobs filled by professionals did not have that problem.

What PI areas do not have any trouble recruiting and retaining qualified workers?


Higher education, but see below for more examples.

If the government finds out it can't afford higher salaries it could lay people off rather than creating what is now an untouchable contract right.


Because laying off people in a sector that has so much trouble with longterm staffing that it needed something like PSLF to retain workers is the best way to retain workers?

Here's an example: Legal Aid pays s**t because they don't get a lot of money and because their caseload is so high volume in comparison to the number of staff they can retain that they have to value quantity of personnel over paying them what they deserve (which is the quandry facing most PI organizations). If they fire half their staff so that the other half can get pay increases, how do they then afford to pay to replace the staff they lost? If they don't replace that staff and just tell people to "get more efficient," how do you convince people to then work there, even with a large pay bump, if you have to also warn them that they're also going to have to deal with 100+ more cases on their docket than they would have before, because there is now less staff to deal with the work? How many people would actually think taking on a docket of 500-600+ cases if LAS offered you a $80k salary in NYC, no PSLF/similar program, is a good deal when comparing it to working in the private sector in NYC? How do you, in particular, convince students whose credentials qualify them for those other opportunities (biglaw, etc.) to forego those opportunities to work at LAS? Because again, PSLF isn't just about helping PI hire, it's about helping PI attract quality talent.


There are roughly 36 million PSLF jobs available in this country (roughly 22.5mm in government at all levels and 14mm in the nonprofit sector).

If you want to make an argument for PSLF for certain targeted jobs, great, make it. But rich suburbs don't struggle to attract qualified teachers. DOJ and FBI don't struggle to recruit and retain to a level that compromises their mission. Should doctors who aren't serving underserved areas hang out in nonprofits for for six years after residency and get hundreds of thousands of debt wiped out by tax payers when they could have afforded to pay it off themselves? The military and state governments don't struggle to recruit as a whole, they struggle with certain targeted specialities.

What stops a committed well qualified, in demand worker from going to the private sector, paying off her debts and then jumping to public interest work?
Last edited by nouseforaname123 on Wed May 24, 2017 9:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

nouseforaname123

Bronze
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby nouseforaname123 » Wed May 24, 2017 9:19 am

Nebby wrote:
Pokemon wrote:
Nebby wrote:
Toni V wrote: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



Not sure if this shows the entire image. Thought tuition went up but school became more generous with scholarships.

The things we know: (1) applicants went down drastically from 2010 to 2013; (2) tuition did not go down; (3) most class sizes within the T14 and T1/2 schools saw slight reductions but not that much.

I don't know how we can quantify whether schools were more generous with scholarships as that info is not reported. (that I know of anyway)


The ultimate revenue source, however, was still there (government loans) so it's hard to read too much into this cycle.

Also, from 2011 to 2015, many top schools saw more than a "slight" enrollement drop.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... r-students

It would have been much worse if schools didn't have guaranteed financing from the government.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby cavalier1138 » Wed May 24, 2017 9:21 am

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...

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31199
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Wed May 24, 2017 9:24 am

nouseforaname123 wrote:What stops a committed well qualified, in demand worker from going to the private sector, paying off her debts and then jumping to public interest work?

Lol

This never plays out in theory. So much so it's a trope within the PI community

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby runinthefront » Wed May 24, 2017 10:00 am

cavalier1138 wrote: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.
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.