Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread Forum

[usfvictor]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/law_school_is_a_sham/

Read before enrolling lemmings

Get a life, buddy. Sorry you bombed the LSAT and/or have an embarrassing GPA.

Don't make stupid assumptions.

Ivy League undergrad, top 20 law school with a fellowship, SA and all that. Graduated in 09. Now doc review for life.

Why are you assuming doc review for life?

[Rahviveh]

The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

The question is, do you think they would do this to people already in the program?

You sign up for a program and agree to its term, make your payments and they just boot you out because you have GRAD PLUS loans?

I guess I don't see that happening. I do agree that at some point they are going to limit the program.

[timbs4339]

The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

The question is, do you think they would do this to people already in the program?

You sign up for a program and agree to its term, make your payments and they just boot you out because you have GRAD PLUS loans?

I guess I don't see that happening. I do agree that at some point they are going to limit the program.

It's the same as taking out student loans on the expectation that they are dischargable. It doesn't change the welfare queen theory. Supposedly, you're making those payments (and getting the "benefit" of lower payments in the process) in order to dump the rest of your loans on the taxpayer in 20 years. You were at fault the moment you signed up in reliance on IBR.

The point is that "fairness" is not really a consideration here. It wasn't fair that a lot of people who could have legitimately discharged their loans in bankruptcy got screwed because of a couple of anecdotal or imagined instances of abuse.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

The question is, do you think they would do this to people already in the program?

You sign up for a program and agree to its term, make your payments and they just boot you out because you have GRAD PLUS loans?

I guess I don't see that happening. I do agree that at some point they are going to limit the program.

It's the same as taking out student loans on the expectation that they are dischargable. It doesn't change the welfare queen theory. Supposedly, you're making those payments (and getting the "benefit" of lower payments in the process) in order to dump the rest of your loans on the taxpayer in 20 years. You were at fault the moment you signed up in reliance on IBR.

The point is that "fairness" is not really a consideration here. It wasn't fair that a lot of people who could have legitimately discharged their loans in bankruptcy got screwed because of a couple of anecdotal or imagined instances of abuse.

But again, just because you had the potential to discharge your loans in bankruptcy when you took them on, if you haven't taken advantage of that, no harm, no foul in ending the possibility. Entering the IBR or PAYE program is more like being halfway through a bankruptcy proceeding when student loans were made no longer dischargable - if you'd begun proceedings, they're not going to halt the proceedings on the basis that the law has changed; it's only going to affect people who wanted to file bankruptcy in the future. If you're a student in law school who took on the loans because you intended to enter PAYE, and then PAYE is cut, well, too bad; that's like changing the dischargability; but if you've already entered IBR/PAYE, that's a different story.

(Again, I don't know if they could yank it out from under participants' feet, but I don't think they should be able to just based on the analogy to the change in bankruptcy law.)

[timbs4339]

Reasking this:

What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

This I would actually like to know... if you are already in the system, do you get to stay in it, or do you get screwed? I would hope that those who are already enrolled in PAYE will get to continue repaying under this system even if it is revoked.

The repeal would probably not only be for strictly budgetary reasons, but would likely also be prompted by some kind of moralistic BS like they used to make student loans non-dischargable (the "welfare queen" law student who dumps her loans on the taxpayer then takes that 160K Skadden job) or some Tea Party no bailouts rhetoric. Yes, this makes no sense, but it didn't make any sense back in the 70s/80s either.

When they made student loans non-dischargable, they applied it to all student loans. Therefore, I'd think they would apply PAYE repeal to all student loans as well.

I guess I don't see changing what can/can't be discharged under bankruptcy as quite analogous to killing a program where people have already acted in accordance with its terms, i.e. paid less than they would otherwise and had interest accrue. I'm sure the discharge terms changing screwed people, especially in the general sense that all future students no longer had that safety net. But I doubt there were lots of student-loan-takers who were intending to file bankruptcy and discharge their loans the following week and had that option taken away from them when the change occurred (I'd imagine there would have been some notice of the change, too). So I could certainly see PAYE getting cut and students who entered law school expecting to take advantage of it being screwed, but not so much the people already in the program.

(I think I just mean detrimental reliance, but I always had the impression that wasn't a very strong argument, so I've been trying to avoid it. Also, I suck at contracts.)

But again, that's mostly because I want to think that.

Since the bankruptcy thing has come up - I suppose in a way PAYE is an alternative to allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, in that both systems allow students to get out for under crushing debt-to-income ratios. At least with PAYE, the government gets some of it back. Conversely, you can argue that the bankruptcy discharge thing was intended as a sort of last resort, catastrophic option, and PAYE makes it more the norm to get lots of the loan forgiven. (And I'm sure schools will bill it this way...) Maybe that's just a tacit recognition of how far tuition is outstripping likely income these days? In any case, I'd be fine with cutting PAYE if discharging student loans in bankruptcy became an option again.

ETA:

The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

Really? I guess I would see instituting an income cap as more likely. (With possible appeals based on personal circumstances, e.g. local COL and if you have kids, that kind of thing.) Why remove GradPLUS (most of my loans are GradPLUS and I assumed this was the case for most law students)?

There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.

You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.

This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.

[sinfiery]

Very interesting to read this last page

[A. Nony Mouse]

There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.

You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.

This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.

Oh, yeah, I agree that IBR works as a subsidy. I just think there's a difference between having already entered the subsidy program vs. assuming it will be there if you need it.

And that makes sense about GradPLUS, I get that. I think only removing the GradPLUS loans seems way more complicated than excluding based on income, or nature of the grad program, given all the different kinds of loans out there and how many separate loans each loan-taker has (I get like 6 statements mailed to me every month, and I've only taken loans for law school). But I see your point.

And no, I totally agree schools shouldn't encourage students to rely on it.

(I tend to come off as defending IBR in these threads, but in part it's because I'm shooting for PSLF, and sometimes I forget the different kinds of policies behind the 2 programs. I keep thinking we need IBR for people like PDs, then I remember that's what PSLF is for and it's not the same. So, carry on...)

[timbs4339]

The most likely thing would be to remove Gradplus loans from the program entirely. This would allow the government to predict the total amount they can earn on a student, while protecting them from price increases on the part of rogue schools.

The question is, do you think they would do this to people already in the program?

You sign up for a program and agree to its term, make your payments and they just boot you out because you have GRAD PLUS loans?

I guess I don't see that happening. I do agree that at some point they are going to limit the program.

It's the same as taking out student loans on the expectation that they are dischargable. It doesn't change the welfare queen theory. Supposedly, you're making those payments (and getting the "benefit" of lower payments in the process) in order to dump the rest of your loans on the taxpayer in 20 years. You were at fault the moment you signed up in reliance on IBR.

The point is that "fairness" is not really a consideration here. It wasn't fair that a lot of people who could have legitimately discharged their loans in bankruptcy got screwed because of a couple of anecdotal or imagined instances of abuse.

But again, just because you had the potential to discharge your loans in bankruptcy when you took them on, if you haven't taken advantage of that, no harm, no foul in ending the possibility. Entering the IBR or PAYE program is more like being halfway through a bankruptcy proceeding when student loans were made no longer dischargable - if you'd begun proceedings, they're not going to halt the proceedings on the basis that the law has changed; it's only going to affect people who wanted to file bankruptcy in the future. If you're a student in law school who took on the loans because you intended to enter PAYE, and then PAYE is cut, well, too bad; that's like changing the dischargability; but if you've already entered IBR/PAYE, that's a different story.

(Again, I don't know if they could yank it out from under participants' feet, but I don't think they should be able to just based on the analogy to the change in bankruptcy law.)

We're not talking about the law here, we're talking about public opinion. I've seen no good argument that says the government can't legally rescind a benefit program. Practically/politically, that people have already started paying into IBR is a distinction without a difference, because from one perspective IBR itself is a benefit and because there should be no "reliance" on anything that allows you to cheat the taxpayer out of your repayment obligation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

We're not talking about the law here, we're talking about public opinion. I've seen no good argument that says the government can't legally rescind a benefit program. Practically/politically, that people have already started paying into IBR is a distinction without a difference, because from one perspective IBR itself is a benefit and because there should be no "reliance" on anything that allows you to cheat the taxpayer out of your repayment obligation.

Okay, but I actually was talking about the law, not public opinion. But yeah, it probably could still be cut - I just think it would make more sense to have some kind of easing-the-blow for current participants.

[Rahviveh]

There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.

You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.

This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.

Oh, yeah, I agree that IBR works as a subsidy. I just think there's a difference between having already entered the subsidy program vs. assuming it will be there if you need it.

And that makes sense about GradPLUS, I get that. I think only removing the GradPLUS loans seems way more complicated than excluding based on income, or nature of the grad program, given all the different kinds of loans out there and how many separate loans each loan-taker has (I get like 6 statements mailed to me every month, and I've only taken loans for law school). But I see your point.

And no, I totally agree schools shouldn't encourage students to rely on it.

(I tend to come off as defending IBR in these threads, but in part it's because I'm shooting for PSLF, and sometimes I forget the different kinds of policies behind the 2 programs. I keep thinking we need IBR for people like PDs, then I remember that's what PSLF is for and it's not the same. So, carry on...)

If what timbs is saying is true then PSLF isn't safe either. Congress could get rid of that too or exclude grad plus loans.

[goldeneye]

I love when areyouinsane/sadsituationjd makes an appearance. his threads about docreview are the best

[A. Nony Mouse]

There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.

You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.

This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.

Oh, yeah, I agree that IBR works as a subsidy. I just think there's a difference between having already entered the subsidy program vs. assuming it will be there if you need it.

And that makes sense about GradPLUS, I get that. I think only removing the GradPLUS loans seems way more complicated than excluding based on income, or nature of the grad program, given all the different kinds of loans out there and how many separate loans each loan-taker has (I get like 6 statements mailed to me every month, and I've only taken loans for law school). But I see your point.

And no, I totally agree schools shouldn't encourage students to rely on it.

(I tend to come off as defending IBR in these threads, but in part it's because I'm shooting for PSLF, and sometimes I forget the different kinds of policies behind the 2 programs. I keep thinking we need IBR for people like PDs, then I remember that's what PSLF is for and it's not the same. So, carry on...)

If what timbs is saying is true then PSLF isn't safe either. Congress could get rid of that too or exclude grad plus loans.

Sure, they could, but the policy behind PSLF is different. The idea is that it benefits everyone to ensure that there are qualified people willing and able to serve in the public sector, where salaries aren't sufficient to pay the debt required to get the degree in the first place. The policy behind IBR is just that it's not good to have a lot of people suffering crushing debt because they can't find a good-paying job. There's a societal benefit to PSLF that doesn't exist under IBR. I'm not saying no one disagrees with PSLF or sees it in the same light as IBR, but you'd have to take the rationale for getting rid of IBR to a slightly different place to justify getting rid of PSLF.

(Remember, PSLF isn't limited to law students, you're talking about getting doctors to the underserved, etc. I could see narrowing eligibility for PSLF - again, maybe an income cap - but I think getting rid of it entirely is much less likely than getting rid of IBR.

though again, I want to think that. )

[timbs4339]

There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.

You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.

This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.

Oh, yeah, I agree that IBR works as a subsidy. I just think there's a difference between having already entered the subsidy program vs. assuming it will be there if you need it.

And that makes sense about GradPLUS, I get that. I think only removing the GradPLUS loans seems way more complicated than excluding based on income, or nature of the grad program, given all the different kinds of loans out there and how many separate loans each loan-taker has (I get like 6 statements mailed to me every month, and I've only taken loans for law school). But I see your point.

And no, I totally agree schools shouldn't encourage students to rely on it.

(I tend to come off as defending IBR in these threads, but in part it's because I'm shooting for PSLF, and sometimes I forget the different kinds of policies behind the 2 programs. I keep thinking we need IBR for people like PDs, then I remember that's what PSLF is for and it's not the same. So, carry on...)

If what timbs is saying is true then PSLF isn't safe either. Congress could get rid of that too or exclude grad plus loans.

Sure, although the policy there might be different since presumably students are "giving up" the right to make more money in the private sector. However, I'm not sure that's the case for a lot of PSLF students at many law schools, since entry-level private sector salaries are unlikely to outstrip public sector ones.

[Rahviveh]

There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.

You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.

This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.

Oh, yeah, I agree that IBR works as a subsidy. I just think there's a difference between having already entered the subsidy program vs. assuming it will be there if you need it.

And that makes sense about GradPLUS, I get that. I think only removing the GradPLUS loans seems way more complicated than excluding based on income, or nature of the grad program, given all the different kinds of loans out there and how many separate loans each loan-taker has (I get like 6 statements mailed to me every month, and I've only taken loans for law school). But I see your point.

And no, I totally agree schools shouldn't encourage students to rely on it.

(I tend to come off as defending IBR in these threads, but in part it's because I'm shooting for PSLF, and sometimes I forget the different kinds of policies behind the 2 programs. I keep thinking we need IBR for people like PDs, then I remember that's what PSLF is for and it's not the same. So, carry on...)

If what timbs is saying is true then PSLF isn't safe either. Congress could get rid of that too or exclude grad plus loans.

Sure, they could, but the policy behind PSLF is different. The idea is that it benefits everyone to ensure that there are qualified people willing and able to serve in the public sector, where salaries aren't sufficient to pay the debt required to get the degree in the first place. The policy behind IBR is just that it's not good to have a lot of people suffering crushing debt because they can't find a good-paying job. There's a societal benefit to PSLF that doesn't exist under IBR. I'm not saying no one disagrees with PSLF or sees it in the same light as IBR, but you'd have to take the rationale for getting rid of IBR to a slightly different place to justify getting rid of PSLF.

(Remember, PSLF isn't limited to law students, you're talking about getting doctors to the underserved, etc. I could see narrowing eligibility for PSLF - again, maybe an income cap - but I think getting rid of it entirely is much less likely than getting rid of IBR.

though again, I want to think that. )

The risk is there though and one could make an argument "SHITHEAD government lawyers COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS IN LOAN FORGIVENESS". Also, what's considered "good-paying" is relative. The left-wing proposals I've seen for reforming IBR want to limit eligiblity to incomes of $30k or less and cap forgiven debt at $40k:

http://edmoney.newamerica.net/sites/new ... ayment.pdf

That's for PAYE in general though, not for PSLF - which I agree is less likely to change anytime soon. Also those recommendations were old and not adopted by the administration

[A. Nony Mouse]

There's totally a risk these programs could all go away. I kinda dread what will happen once the government has to start paying out, actually. The only thing way LS doesn't pose any financial risk is if you have a wealthy relative footing the entire bill (even full scholarships don't usually include COL).

[timbs4339]

There's totally a risk these programs could all go away. I kinda dread what will happen once the government has to start paying out, actually. The only thing way LS doesn't pose any financial risk is if you have a wealthy relative footing the entire bill (even full scholarships don't usually include COL).

The scarier thing is what happens if someone decides to disaggregate IBR like companies usually (or should usually) look at loan or investment portfolios, and figures out that there's one specific investment that isn't making much sense right now (TTT law students). The hope is that egalitarianism or cronyism saves the benefit for law students, because the left will see any attempt to reduce benefits for students at low ranked law schools as racist, and the right doesn't want to reduce any loan programs that help convince dumb kids to enroll in their for-profit campaign donors.

The thing about eliminating IBR for GP loans only is that it won't hurt for-profit undergrads, which is the main reason that the right is not making the student loan system more of an issue.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The thing about eliminating IBR for GP loans only is that it won't hurt for-profit undergrads, which is the main reason that the right is not making the student loan system more of an issue.

And the for-profit undergrad schools are the worst offenders.

[timbs4339]

The thing about eliminating IBR for GP loans only is that it won't hurt for-profit undergrads, which is the main reason that the right is not making the student loan system more of an issue.

And the for-profit undergrad schools are the worst offenders.

Right, but there are many law schools that are essentially for-profit schools, except profits are paid like under a partnership model rather than a shareholder model.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The thing about eliminating IBR for GP loans only is that it won't hurt for-profit undergrads, which is the main reason that the right is not making the student loan system more of an issue.

And the for-profit undergrad schools are the worst offenders.

Right, but there are many law schools that are essentially for-profit schools, except profits are paid like under a partnership model rather than a shareholder model.

Yeah, that's true too.

[NoodleyOne]

Question: I was issued loans in 2003, but they are paid off. I then took more loans starting in 09... does that mean I am or I am not eligible for PAYE? Hopefully it will be a moot point since I'll be making DAT BIGLAW SALARY but, ya know... chickens and eggs and hatching and whatnot.

[20141023]

.

[NoodleyOne]

Question: I was issued loans in 2003, but they are paid off. I then took more loans starting in 09... does that mean I am or I am not eligible for PAYE? Hopefully it will be a moot point since I'll be making DAT BIGLAW SALARY but, ya know... chickens and eggs and hatching and whatnot.

I think it is a simply matter of whether you took them out before October 2007, and not whether you took them out and repaid them.

Well that's fucked.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Question: I was issued loans in 2003, but they are paid off. I then took more loans starting in 09... does that mean I am or I am not eligible for PAYE? Hopefully it will be a moot point since I'll be making DAT BIGLAW SALARY but, ya know... chickens and eggs and hatching and whatnot.

I think it is a simply matter of whether you took them out before October 2007, and not whether you took them out and repaid them.

Well that's fucked.

Did you pay them off before Oct 2007? According to this, http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/un ... s-you-earn, you have to be a "new borrower":

You are a new borrower if you had no outstanding balance on a Direct Loan or FFEL Program loan as of Oct. 1, 2007, or had no outstanding balance on a Direct Loan or FFEL Program loan when you received a new loan on or after Oct. 1, 2007.

You also have to have received a disbursement of a Direct Loan on or after Oct. 1, 2011.

[NoodleyOne]

I paid off the debt before I pulled out more loans. I think that means I qualify?

Hopefully it won't matter either way, but still, nice to know.