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
elendinel

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby elendinel » Tue May 23, 2017 7:35 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I know at least two people who turned down a fullride at a T1 just to go to a T13 at sticker because "debt doesn't matter I want PI." Thats a ways of probably 400k to get society literally nothing. And it buttfucked one because she couldn't get a PI job and now works shitlaw.


"I know one person who took on debt to get a PI job, so we have to fundamentally reform PSLF to prevent someone from ever doing it again. Also there was someone else who tried to and didn't, but I'm gonna include her anyway, for reasons."

K.

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby runinthefront » Tue May 23, 2017 7:36 pm

elendinel wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I know at least two people who turned down a fullride at a T1 just to go to a T13 at sticker because "debt doesn't matter I want PI." Thats a ways of probably 400k to get society literally nothing. And it buttfucked one because she couldn't get a PI job and now works shitlaw.


"I know one person who took on debt to get a PI job, so we have to fundamentally reform PSLF to prevent someone from ever doing it again. Also there was someone else who tried to and didn't, but I'm gonna include her anyway, for reasons."

K.

Do you not think this happens regularly at T14s? I mean, TLS S.O.P. is literally "well if you're going PI I guess you should take NYU at sticker over the Emory full-ride because PSLF"

that's literally the advice many give
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby runinthefront » Tue May 23, 2017 7:38 pm

It's not that I don't think the government shouldn't subsidize those who forgo well-paying opportunities to promote the general welfare. Sure, write off 50 or 100k. But writing off 200k+ is ridiculous and unnecessary, particularly when the legal market is completely saturated with lawyers who could do the same job.
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cavalier1138

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue May 23, 2017 7:41 pm

runinthefront wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I know at least two people who turned down a fullride at a T1 just to go to a T13 at sticker because "debt doesn't matter I want PI." Thats a ways of probably 400k to get society literally nothing. And it buttfucked one because she couldn't get a PI job and now works shitlaw.


This is literally what comes to mind when I think about PSLF. All of my friends who decided not to retake the LSAT or go to my state's strongest school (a great school!) because the gov't would simply write off their entire debt burden. Crazy


Where are all of these mythical students? Are they in a closet with the "welfare queens" of society?

Students at Chicago aren't aiming to be ADAs in Minnesota. PI lawyers get paid badly (and no, DOJ doesn't get close to biglaw, even after you've been working there for years), but the government and NGOs need high quality applicants.

Oh, and funny story: your totally badass state school is the one benefiting from PSLF. Students at top schools already had LRAP to rely on. Students at Flagship U had fuck-all. PSLF enables those students to do things like the DA's office right out of school, even if they weren't able to get a great scholarship package from Flagship U. PSLF makes sure that good students at those T1 schools aren't feeling compelled to go into private practice to pay back a mountain of debt. The students at HYSCCN, etc. were already in that position, and the government leveled the playing field for schools without insane endowments.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Desert Fox » Tue May 23, 2017 7:44 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:Image


lol true
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby runinthefront » Tue May 23, 2017 7:47 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:Where are all of these mythical students? Are they in a closet with the "welfare queens" of society?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: you've really mistaken my politics
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby runinthefront » Tue May 23, 2017 7:49 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
runinthefront wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I know at least two people who turned down a fullride at a T1 just to go to a T13 at sticker because "debt doesn't matter I want PI." Thats a ways of probably 400k to get society literally nothing. And it buttfucked one because she couldn't get a PI job and now works shitlaw.


This is literally what comes to mind when I think about PSLF. All of my friends who decided not to retake the LSAT or go to my state's strongest school (a great school!) because the gov't would simply write off their entire debt burden. Crazy


Where are all of these mythical students? Are they in a closet with the "welfare queens" of society?

Students at Chicago aren't aiming to be ADAs in Minnesota. PI lawyers get paid badly (and no, DOJ doesn't get close to biglaw, even after you've been working there for years), but the government and NGOs need high quality applicants.

Oh, and funny story: your totally badass state school is the one benefiting from PSLF. Students at top schools already had LRAP to rely on. Students at Flagship U had fuck-all. PSLF enables those students to do things like the DA's office right out of school, even if they weren't able to get a great scholarship package from Flagship U. PSLF makes sure that good students at those T1 schools aren't feeling compelled to go into private practice to pay back a mountain of debt. The students at HYSCCN, etc. were already in that position, and the government leveled the playing field for schools without insane endowments.


UF COA is $133,000. Subsidizing like $70k of that is fine. But if someone took out $300k to be a prosecutor from UF, they should be shit outta luck. Did you not read?

runinthefront wrote:It's not that I don't think the government shouldn't subsidize those who forgo well-paying opportunities to promote the general welfare. Sure, write off 50 or 100k. But writing off 200k+ is ridiculous and unnecessary, particularly when the legal market is completely saturated with lawyers who could do the same job.
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cavalier1138

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue May 23, 2017 7:52 pm

runinthefront wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
runinthefront wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I know at least two people who turned down a fullride at a T1 just to go to a T13 at sticker because "debt doesn't matter I want PI." Thats a ways of probably 400k to get society literally nothing. And it buttfucked one because she couldn't get a PI job and now works shitlaw.


This is literally what comes to mind when I think about PSLF. All of my friends who decided not to retake the LSAT or go to my state's strongest school (a great school!) because the gov't would simply write off their entire debt burden. Crazy


Where are all of these mythical students? Are they in a closet with the "welfare queens" of society?

Students at Chicago aren't aiming to be ADAs in Minnesota. PI lawyers get paid badly (and no, DOJ doesn't get close to biglaw, even after you've been working there for years), but the government and NGOs need high quality applicants.

Oh, and funny story: your totally badass state school is the one benefiting from PSLF. Students at top schools already had LRAP to rely on. Students at Flagship U had fuck-all. PSLF enables those students to do things like the DA's office right out of school, even if they weren't able to get a great scholarship package from Flagship U. PSLF makes sure that good students at those T1 schools aren't feeling compelled to go into private practice to pay back a mountain of debt. The students at HYSCCN, etc. were already in that position, and the government leveled the playing field for schools without insane endowments.


UF COA is $133,000. Subsidizing like $70k of that is fine. But if someone took out $300k to be a prosecutor from UF, they should be shit outta luck


Or maybe law schools shouldn't be charging $300k in tuition in the first place. But since they are, it makes no sense to only partially forgive that tuition for students who are capable and want to serve the public.

But this is all moot. Lawyers are not the main beneficiaries of PSLF. This program is for everyone working in public service.

User avatar
elendinel

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby elendinel » Tue May 23, 2017 7:53 pm

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.

runinthefront

Gold
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby runinthefront » Tue May 23, 2017 7:56 pm

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.


I don't see anything wrong with your post. I guess my opinion is simply "where do we draw the line?" Should we still be subsidizing these law students when law school tuition breaks 400k? At what point do the costs outweigh the (relatively intangible--at least, in my opinion) benefits? Sure, the interest in having the best students government funds can buy is compelling, but at what point does it become too expensive?
Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Desert Fox » Tue May 23, 2017 7:58 pm

Really, GradPlus needs to be capped at 100k max lifetime.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

dixiecupdrinking

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Tue May 23, 2017 8:00 pm

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.

jaydizzle

Silver
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby jaydizzle » Tue May 23, 2017 8:04 pm

runinthefront 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.


I don't see anything wrong with your post. I guess my opinion is simply "where do we draw the line?" Should we still be subsidizing these law students when law school tuition breaks 400k? At what point do the costs outweigh the (relatively intangible--at least, in my opinion) benefits? Sure, the interest in having the best students government funds can buy is compelling, but at what point does it become too expensive?


I agree with these points, but I do think that being grandfathered in is important. I know there are many arguments (promissory note language, etc.) in favor of grandfathering people in. Reform of some kind does need to happen, but changing the game for people who are already in the program shouldn't happen, and it looks like it won't. For every type of program there will be a group of people that some people think they don't "deserve" the benefit, but that's just the way it is.

The question is how do you fix the tuition issue? Does the government not subsidize education at all- does this mean only the rich get to go or those that are able to test well? If other systems are working around the world surely we can figure something out. The liberal in me believes that healthcare and education should be provided for and should not be a profitable business.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Desert Fox » Tue May 23, 2017 8:15 pm

Tuition controls: Any schools accepting Federal loans can't charge more then 20k tuition per year. Limit federal loans to 50k for UG and 100k for Grad + UG.

Rich private schools would forgo federal loans, but subsidize poor students.

Everywhere else would just stop scamming students to pay for fat ass administrators and faculty.

NYU, NW, UChi, Columbia, GTown, GWU, USC, UCLA, Boston area, Houston, Dallas, etc. schools could easily find elite adjuncts to teach. Fuck, I was paying 65k a year and at least 1/3rd of my classes were taught by partners volunteering. Meanwhile, SCHOLARLY POWERHOUSES teach 4 classes a year and get paid like 400k a year. Fuck off.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325089
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 23, 2017 8:29 pm

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).

User avatar
Johann

Diamond
Posts: 19702
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Johann » Tue May 23, 2017 9:44 pm

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.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue May 23, 2017 9:49 pm

runinthefront wrote:
elendinel wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I know at least two people who turned down a fullride at a T1 just to go to a T13 at sticker because "debt doesn't matter I want PI." Thats a ways of probably 400k to get society literally nothing. And it buttfucked one because she couldn't get a PI job and now works shitlaw.


"I know one person who took on debt to get a PI job, so we have to fundamentally reform PSLF to prevent someone from ever doing it again. Also there was someone else who tried to and didn't, but I'm gonna include her anyway, for reasons."

K.

Do you not think this happens regularly at T14s? I mean, TLS S.O.P. is literally "well if you're going PI I guess you should take NYU at sticker over the Emory full-ride because PSLF"

that's literally the advice many give

I'm pretty sure that advice is usually "because LRAP," not "because PSLF." A lot of schools rely on PSLF to fund their LRAPs, but they're not the same thing (LRAPs were around before PSLF). But when you're talking NYU I'm pretty sure it's the school that's on the hook, not the government.

User avatar
Johann

Diamond
Posts: 19702
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Johann » Tue May 23, 2017 9:52 pm

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.
yes. that's why the policy decision was made in the first place.
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.
the whole point is they dont have the money because they are providing a PUBLIC SERVICE. kind of like the park that no one wants to pay for but betters everyones life.
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...).
the VAST majority of the people using PSLF are not high earners. they make teacher salaries (including lawyers). and domestic violence is a very common problem in poor areas that needs legal representation. same with landlord tenant relationships. same with just about anything from preventing large power institutions ripping off poor people and further perpetuating poorness.
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).
or the lack of a low cost, govt provided alternative led to runaway costs.
costs were going up way before govt entered the loan picture. e.g. see the 1990s

im glad you at least recognized how stupid your post was by going anon.

User avatar
jess

Diamond
Posts: 18149
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby jess » Tue May 23, 2017 10:03 pm

.
Last edited by jess on Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Npret

Silver
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Npret » Tue May 23, 2017 10:26 pm

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.

Nebby

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Tue May 23, 2017 10:53 pm

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

Bluem_11

Bronze
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Bluem_11 » Tue May 23, 2017 10:54 pm

The obvious solution is move to and go to school in Canada.

Nebby

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Tue May 23, 2017 11:00 pm

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?

User avatar
Toni V

Bronze
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Toni V » Tue May 23, 2017 11:07 pm

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?

Nebby

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

Re: Trump student loan plans

Postby Nebby » Tue May 23, 2017 11:10 pm

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



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.