Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial Forum

[minnbills]

I'm not so sure that private capital will be willing to risk 200k on a law student that has a low probability of paying the loan back if it isn't already subsidized by the federal gov't.

Unless of course they bundle subprime student loans into massive tranches, rate them AAA, trade the risk for a small fee, default on the tranches, get bailed out by the gov't, profit.

Haha exactly, somebody on Wall St. will take the risk

[mattviphky]

I think there are many, many undergrads who don't know about law school. Neither do their parents nor their pre-law advisors. Also, the years of misinformation put out by the schools is a lot to overcome.

these are the worst. The people that should definitely know the most about this issue seem to the most ignorant. At my school, the pre-law advisor was a joke. Regarding the local TTT: "Yeah, you'll probably take on a great deal of debt. Probably as deep as buying a house. But the investment is long term, and will serve you well if you make the most of it." Like, what? No mention of studying for the lsat to get a good scholarship or anything! At least recommend this site, or even self preparation for the test. It seems like the test is what fucks the most people over when it comes to admissions, but SO FEW PEOPLE GIVE A SHIT! If the advisors aren't gonna give a shit, that's gonna send a message to the students that they shouldn't give a shit, either.

[Tiago Splitter]

If federal loans are restricted, private capital will probably step in to fill the gap since the need for loans will still be there, and the issue will still be unresolved.

But if private capital is actually on the hook if the borrower defaults the problem is largely solved. Tuition and enrollment both go down.

As Campos has said just about anything would be an improvement over the current system. I'd even prefer a hardcore left-wing system of straight capping the number of people allowed in over the existing disaster.

To BearsGrl's point, we probably need to make the schools accountable by having them issue or guarantee at least part of the loan. That way if you really are capable of making it the school can let you in, but it prevents them from taking on just any idiot who can borrow from the government.

Haha exactly, somebody on Wall St. will take the risk

Not if the government got out of the way. But it's fair to suggest this won't happen. For those of us that support limited government, it's sad times.

[banjo]

Why reinvent the wheel? We should simply look to Canada as a model. For the most part, legal education in Canada is affordable, employment prospects are strong outside British Columbia, and Canadian law faculties remain involved in academic research. There are only 18 common law schools in all of Canada, many with class sizes < 100.

[mattviphky]

I'm curious to see if this left-wing circle jerk will head back to the original topic of the thread. At some point you guys will have to address the issue of government involvement in the student loan business.

Why shouldn't the government be lending to students? I don't think the answer to this problem is making a legal education less accessible.

Of course you don't. But you need to understand that it's your desire for access to higher education that has led to these disastrous unintended consequences.

Call me cruel, but I do think part of the solution is making legal education less accessible. Lowering tuition sounds great until you realize it lets even more people in. I did like how Tamanaha addressed this by capping the total amount of federal money a school could get, but smaller schools could still expand and maintain the surplus of JDs.

but if federal loans are taken out of the picture, then many of the TTTTs will close because private lenders are going to be a bit more hesitant to loan out 180k to a student at these schools. So that right there will take out many law students, so the surplus will be less of a problem.

[Tiago Splitter]

To the above post, I agree, but that's not tamanaha's suggestion. He just wants to cap the amount of money the feds can loan to a single school.

[minnbills]

But if private capital is actually on the hook if the borrower defaults the problem is largely solved. Tuition and enrollment both go down.

As Campos has said just about anything would be an improvement over the current system. I'd even prefer a hardcore left-wing system of straight capping the number of people allowed in over the existing disaster.

To BearsGrl's point, we probably need to make the schools accountable by having them issue or guarantee at least part of the loan. That way if you really are capable of making it the school can let you in, but it prevents them from taking on just any idiot who can borrow from the government.


Not if the government got out of the way. But it's fair to suggest this won't happen. For those of us that support limited government, it's sad times.

I don't think it follows that private supplanting federal capital will lead to enrollment and tuition decreasing. For one, it would have the immediate aspect of restricting access to low-income applicants, while others might simply lean on their parents in conjunction with taking private loans.

After all that's happened over the past four years I just don't believe that private lenders are sufficiently risk-averse (not to mention how creative they are on shifting risk to investors) to shy away from the potential payouts lending to students could bring.

My hesitation in asking a school to guarantee a loan would be that it jeopardizes current students should the school itself fail.

Again, I think a better solution would be to shut down unnecessary schools, thus making it easier for graduates to pay off their loans in the first place and drop the 3rd year which would seriously decrease the cost of the education (and get people earning sooner.)

[noleknight16]

I'm curious to see if this left-wing circle jerk will head back to the original topic of the thread. At some point you guys will have to address the issue of government involvement in the student loan business.

Boom shacka lacka +1

[CwallXC322]

If federal loans are restricted, private capital will probably step in to fill the gap since the need for loans will still be there, and the issue will still be unresolved.

But if private capital is actually on the hook if the borrower defaults the problem is largely solved. Tuition and enrollment both go down.

As Campos has said just about anything would be an improvement over the current system. I'd even prefer a hardcore left-wing system of straight capping the number of people allowed in over the existing disaster.

To BearsGrl's point, we probably need to make the schools accountable by having them issue or guarantee at least part of the loan. That way if you really are capable of making it the school can let you in, but it prevents them from taking on just any idiot who can borrow from the government.

Haha exactly, somebody on Wall St. will take the risk

Not if the government got out of the way. But it's fair to suggest this won't happen. For those of us that support limited government, it's sad times.

How is that a hard core left wing system?

A completely free market system will only incentivise lawyers that can get big law and want to get big law. Why would private equity bet on a PI lawyer? Enrollment would most certainly go down but at what cost to the legal profession? There are jobs outside big law that will only be available to the most affluent among us (who can afford to pay for their legal education). The current law that forgives student loans after 10 years of public service is pretty important IMO.

I like the idea of school's holding some risk for the students loan though.

[Tiago Splitter]

I don't think it follows that private supplanting federal capital will lead to enrollment and tuition decreasing. For one, it would have the immediate aspect of restricting access to low-income applicants, while others might simply lean on their parents in conjunction with taking private loans.

You can't both say that it would restrict access and that it wouldn't lead to decreased enrollment.

How is that a hard core left wing system?

The government setting artificial caps is about as left wing as it gets.

A completely free market system will only incentivise lawyers that can get big law and want to get big law. Why would private equity bet on a PI lawyer? Enrollment would most certainly go down but at what cost to the legal profession? There are jobs outside big law that will only be available to the most affluent among us (who can afford to pay for their legal education). The current law that forgives student loans after 10 years of public service is pretty important IMO.

This is a fair concern, and I don't think we have to get rid of PSLF to get the government out of the student loan business.

[noleknight16]

If the ABA's standards can be removed from a one size fits all system, some schools can focus on low cost legal education for public interest work and others can focus on big law prestige work.

[RedBirds2011]

If the ABA's standards can be removed from a one size fits all system, some schools can focus on low cost legal education for public interest work and others can focus on big law prestige work.

And this too. I've Always said a TTT does serve a real function for local small law firm lawyers. The only problem is the insane cost. Some TTTs don't need to be closed down they just need to be run with different goals and a different model than a HYS type school.

[CwallXC322]

I don't think it follows that private supplanting federal capital will lead to enrollment and tuition decreasing. For one, it would have the immediate aspect of restricting access to low-income applicants, while others might simply lean on their parents in conjunction with taking private loans.

You can't both say that it would restrict access and that it wouldn't lead to decreased enrollment.

How is that a hard core left wing system?

The government setting artificial caps is about as left wing as it gets.

A completely free market system will only incentivise lawyers that can get big law and want to get big law. Why would private equity bet on a PI lawyer? Enrollment would most certainly go down but at what cost to the legal profession? There are jobs outside big law that will only be available to the most affluent among us (who can afford to pay for their legal education). The current law that forgives student loans after 10 years of public service is pretty important IMO.

This is a fair concern, and I don't think we have to get rid of PSLF to get the government out of the student loan business.

PSLF is the government getting involved in student loans and is a hybrid system. I think we all agree that there must be more risk involved than the current system to drive the cost of tuition down, we simply disagree over how much of a hybrid is needed.

Ultimately there needs to be more transparency (thank you TLS) in how risky a legal education is. The gov't needs to get out of the mindset that all student debt is good debt but there still needs to be federal aid in order to keep some sort of vision of egalitarianism in the pursuance of higher education.

Federal Money Caps and a credit ratings for graduates of law schools is a start IMO.

[morally0bese]

@ Sunny: If you read my post closely, I am not saying that this information is something that all law school applicants "know" but what they "should know." I agree that there needs to be much more awareness which is why I posed the question to this thread of whether or not yall believe this article will lead to more awareness and/or policy.

I also have heard alot about the "loans" plank of this article's argument but have yet to hear anyone discuss the second plank of the arg (tenured professors).

Lastly, I really am intrigued by Red Bird's suggestion: "I would be for a system that has very very low tuition but a very very initial high weed out rate." Of course, this would have to be in conjunction with other reforms.

p.s. This austerity/stimulus debate is really meaningless in this context. Let's look at the specific, structural problems that were brought up in the article.

[RedBirds2011]

@ Sunny: If you read my post closely, I am not saying that this information is something that all law school applicants "know" but what they "should know." I agree that there needs to be much more awareness which is why I posed the question to this thread of whether or not yall believe this article will lead to more awareness and/or policy.

I also have heard alot about the "loans" plank of this article's argument but have yet to hear anyone discuss the second plank of the arg (tenured professors).

Lastly, I really am intrigued by Red Bird's suggestion: "I would be for a system that has very very low tuition but a very very initial high weed out rate." Of course, this would have to be in conjunction with other reforms.

p.s. This austerity/stimulus debate is really meaningless in this context. Let's look at the specific, structural problems that were brought up in the article.

Yea, I got the idea from a doctor I knew in undergrad. He went to undergrad and medical school in Europe. He informed me that pretty much everyone gets into college there and it's super cheap but that a LOT drop out the first year because it's so hard. Therefore, the ones that truly belong in advanced education make it while the rest either try again or move on to something more in line with their talents.

[morally0bese]

Cue debate about European austerity measures....

[MrShneebly]

Didn't read the thread, but this ad was at the bottom of the article

"Ads by Google
what's this?
Thomas Jefferson Law
Earn an Accredited Master of Laws
at Thomas Jefferson Law School.
MastersinLaw.TJSL.edu"

[MormonChristian]

Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opini ... ef=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... -dead.html

I don't think the solution is more government regulation. Putting a cap on student loans really penalizes the poor law student.

I think the solutions might be
1) higher bar standards
2) a harder bar test
3) the government needs to stop making so many new laws
4) start fining people and stop arresting people for most victimless crimes

[minnbills]

I don't think the solution is more government regulation. Putting a cap on student loans really penalizes the poor law student.

I think the solutions might be
1) higher bar standards
2) a harder bar test
3) the government needs to stop making so many new laws
4) start fining people and stop arresting people for most victimless crimes

[RedBirds2011]

I don't see anything wrong with making the BAR exam harder. I've heard the CPA exam is harder than the BAR and it has a much lower pass rate. I think making the BAR exam harder would be a good idea so long as they didn't charge you 200,000 dollars for the privilege of taking it.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

I'm curious to see if this left-wing circle jerk will head back to the original topic of the thread. At some point you guys will have to address the issue of government involvement in the student loan business.

Why shouldn't the government be lending to students? I don't think the answer to this problem is making a legal education less accessible.

Because it does so irresponsibly and at higher cost than the private market would do it.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opini ... ef=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... -dead.html

Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.

LOL @ this trite liberal bullshit.

[RedBirds2011]

Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opini ... ef=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... -dead.html

Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.

LOL @ this trite liberal bullshit.

Care to actually elaborate as to why it is "trite liberal bullshit"

[minnbills]

so long as they didn't charge you 200,000 dollars for the privilege of taking it.

Therein lies the problem. Making the bar exam harder would just exacerbate things as it would result in more people (primarily from lower tiered schools who tend to be heavily indebted) harder to employ. I fail to see any benefit, actually.

[prezidentv8]

Didn't read the thread, but this ad was at the bottom of the article

"Ads by Google
what's this?
Thomas Jefferson Law
Earn an Accredited Master of Laws
at Thomas Jefferson Law School.
MastersinLaw.TJSL.edu"

Got the same ad, LOLed.