PSLF revisions: New budget proposal screws anyone in PI. Forum

[Nomo]

I don't know how many 0L's are aware, but I know Michigan has an LRAP session at ASW. It must include information on IBR/PAYE/PSLF. I would assume other schools do this as well.

[dresden doll]

What percentage of 0Ls do you guys think have heard or IBR/PAYE/PSLF- not even who actually know what the terms of the program are, but can tell you what the letters mean?

I was fully informed about this, actually. But I can't speak for others. I went to a pretty corporate law school (UChicago) where most people planned on working for a firm, at least for the first few years after graduation, so perhaps they didn't really have a reason to know or care about this to begin with.

[LSL]

I had a pretty solid understanding of it before I chose my law school (though likewise, can't speak for other students).

[worldtraveler]

i posted an article earlier that said 600k people are on IBR/PAYE. out of 37 million borrowers. but the % has to be higher for law and med students just bc of the sheer cost.

And how many of these went to for profit schools that knowingly enroll students that will never complete a degree or get a job? That is a far bigger problem and it makes me mad that the white house isn't addressing that if they really want to get more of their money back.

[Young Marino]

I think everyone is blowing this up a little too much. The fact that they're already talking about making changes to pslf is disheartening but I doubt the US government is as evil as Alex Jones of InfoWars.com says it is. Remember that in this proposal, you would still get forgiveness without a tax bomb but it's after 25 years instead of 10 which yea, it sucks donkey balls but for someone like myself that can envision working in PI for 25+ years, it's doable. It sucks, but it can be done. My point is, it may not be as good as it was but there will probably still be feasible options to getting around a six figure debt. At the rate students are borrowing, there has to be.

[shawty18ga]

Bigger issue for me short-term would be my bill more than tripling if they include my wife's salary. She sure as shit ain't gonna use her salary on my payments.

[Big Dog]

edited post, be back later

[Tiago Splitter]

i posted an article earlier that said 600k people are on IBR/PAYE. out of 37 million borrowers. but the % has to be higher for law and med students just bc of the sheer cost.

And how many of these went to for profit schools that knowingly enroll students that will never complete a degree or get a job? That is a far bigger problem and it makes me mad that the white house isn't addressing that if they really want to get more of their money back.

thomas cooley is a non-profit school. Not sure why people like to get hung up on the distinction, at least for law schools.

[A. Nony Mouse]

i posted an article earlier that said 600k people are on IBR/PAYE. out of 37 million borrowers. but the % has to be higher for law and med students just bc of the sheer cost.

And how many of these went to for profit schools that knowingly enroll students that will never complete a degree or get a job? That is a far bigger problem and it makes me mad that the white house isn't addressing that if they really want to get more of their money back.

Thomas Cooley is a non-profit school. Not sure why people like to get hung up on the distinction, at least for law schools.

It's not so much an issue for law schools, but in higher ed generally - which the proposal is supposed to be addressing - there are a lot of for-profit schools that have incredibly skeezy practices, preying on truly unsophisticated consumers. I agree that it's a way bigger issue than PSLF and law school loan repayments.

[LSL]

TBF, I think the administration is targeting for-profits somewhat (though a preliminary glance makes me think much more needs to be done). This is still in the works, right?: (only applies to community colleges and for-profits (exempts 4-year colleges and universities). I know the for-profit industry lobbied against it like crazy.

The administration is expected to formally propose a "gainful employment" plan early next year and have the rules in place by 2015. Under a version released this week, programs would lose Title IV funds if they failed one of several standards. The student-debt payments of their former graduates, on average, couldn't exceed 12% of their annual income or 30% of their discretionary income several years after they leave school. Also, the share of students defaulting on federal loans within three years of leaving a program couldn't reach 30%.

The administration estimates that under its latest draft proposal, roughly 13% of programs at for-profit schools and community colleges would fail. An analysis by BMO Capital Markets said that at for-profits alone, 1,400 programs, or roughly 20%, would fail.

LOL, don't worry though, for-profits are thinking about us too...

For-profit schools say they are being unfairly targeted, given that some of the highest student-debt burdens fall on those who attend public and nonprofit graduate schools, such as law and medical school.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Ah, good to know. (Although it's sad to think law schools can make the non-profit bottom feeders look less bad.)

[LSL]

Ah, good to know. (Although it's sad to think law schools can make the non-profit bottom feeders look less bad.)

Yeah, and from what I see, there's no reason that test outlined for the for-profits/community colleges above shouldn't also apply to our 4-year colleges (you know, besides political donations to keep it from ever happening).

[patogordo]

gainful employment regs were struck down by D.C. cir not too long ago. wouldn't put too much faith in those

[LSL]

gainful employment regs were struck down by D.C. cir not too long ago. wouldn't put too much faith in those

I'm not familiar with that particular case, but the article might have mentioned that:

An Education Department spokesman said the agency couldn't comment because it was still in talks with schools on the plan. Student advocates have long called for more-stringent rules at for-profit schools, whose students generally have higher levels of debt and default at higher rates than those at public or nonprofit schools. The administration has been working since 2009 to put in place "gainful employment" rules, but an initial version of the rule was struck down by a federal judge who deemed they were designed in an arbitrary way.

The administration is still going again for a "gainful employment" reg with this new rule-drafting, so they must think there's a way they can get around the struck-down ruling if it's less arbitrary, I think? Not sure.

[patogordo]

we read the case in admin law. iirc the court was very skeptical that the percentages could be set in a non arbitrary way. but who knows.

[bouakedojo]

http://educatedrisk.org/analysis/offici ... imitations

For all new borrowers (with minor exceptions) starting with the 2015-2016 academic year the new expanded PAYE program will be the only income-based repayment plan available so the cap applies. For any other existing borrowers they retain the income-based repayment plan in their promissory note but if they choose to switch to the new expanded PAYE program, they have to accept all the conditions including the caps.

[Big Dog]

Remember that in this proposal, you would still get forgiveness without a tax bomb but it's after 25 years instead of 10 which yea, it sucks donkey balls but for someone like myself

Why would you knowingly sign up for such a program? Why would you put that debt albatross around your future life? It's bone-crusing, mindless debt. It will affect nearly everything you try to do in life: buy a car; buy a house; get married; pay for preschool....

Look at it this way: many/most? students matriculate at in their early 20's....in other words, the debt that they are signing up for will last longer than they have been alive to-date.

But maybe I don't know enough rich people going to law school.

There are hundreds of such families as below, who are high test-takers and can clear 170 on the LSAT, and easily pay sticker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/fashi ... .html?_r=1&

[patogordo]

so they still want to eliminate the tax bomb? interesting

[dresden doll]

Remember that in this proposal, you would still get forgiveness without a tax bomb but it's after 25 years instead of 10 which yea, it sucks donkey balls but for someone like myself

Why would you knowingly sign up for such a program? Why would you put that debt albatross around your future life? It's bone-crusing, mindless debt. It will affect nearly everything you try to do in life: buy a car; buy a house; get married; pay for preschool....

Not only that, but you get to live in fear over all those years that something might change yet again: the reinstatement of the tax bomb, the lengthening of the forgiveness threshold to 35 years, the inclusion of god knows whose income for the purposes of calculating your payments.... Who wants that?

I'm not at all worried about having to remain in public service past the 10 year period. I have zero interest in the private sector and don't anticipate transitioning to a firm at any point in time. But I still long for the day I've accumulated my 120 qualifying payments for one simple reason: it's incredibly anxiety-inducing to be accumulating more debt with each passing year. If my IBR payments covered interest it'd be one thing, but they don't. I can barely stand to look at figures/schedule when the bill arrives each month, and I can't imagine doing it for 15 additional years.

[patogordo]

But maybe I don't know enough rich people going to law school.

There are hundreds of such families as below, who are high test-takers and can clear 170 on the LSAT, and easily pay sticker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/fashi ... .html?_r=1&

hundreds?!?!. egads!

[dresden doll]

But maybe I don't know enough rich people going to law school.

There are hundreds of such families as below, who are high test-takers and can clear 170 on the LSAT, and easily pay sticker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/fashi ... .html?_r=1&

hundreds?!?!. egads!

I wonder how many of those intend to nefariously hold onto their money in hopes of being bailed by the PSLF.

I really don't get why the government wouldn't just change the eligibility criteria as far as applying for loans to begin with.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Remember that in this proposal, you would still get forgiveness without a tax bomb but it's after 25 years instead of 10 which yea, it sucks donkey balls but for someone like myself

Why would you knowingly sign up for such a program? Why would you put that debt albatross around your future life? It's bone-crusing, mindless debt. It will affect nearly everything you try to do in life: buy a car; buy a house; get married; pay for preschool....

Look at it this way: many/most? students matriculate at in their early 20's....in other words, the debt that they are signing up for will last longer than they have been alive to-date.

But maybe I don't know enough rich people going to law school.

There are hundreds of such families as below, who are high test-takers and can clear 170 on the LSAT, and easily pay sticker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/fashi ... .html?_r=1&

Okay. But what percentage of borrowers do they constitute? (I don't think their wedding announcement tells us anything about their borrowing status.)

[timbs4339]

Remember that in this proposal, you would still get forgiveness without a tax bomb but it's after 25 years instead of 10 which yea, it sucks donkey balls but for someone like myself

Why would you knowingly sign up for such a program? Why would you put that debt albatross around your future life? It's bone-crusing, mindless debt. It will affect nearly everything you try to do in life: buy a car; buy a house; get married; pay for preschool....

Not only that, but you get to live in fear over all those years that something might change yet again: the reinstatement of the tax bomb, the lengthening of the forgiveness threshold to 35 years, the inclusion of god knows whose income for the purposes of calculating your payments.... Who wants that?

I'm not at all worried about having to remain in public service past the 10 year period. I have zero interest in the private sector and don't anticipate transitioning to a firm at any point in time. But I still long for the day I've accumulated my 120 qualifying payments for one simple reason: it's incredibly anxiety-inducing to be accumulating more debt with each passing year. If my IBR payments covered interest it'd be one thing, but they don't. I can barely stand to look at figures/schedule when the bill arrives each month, and I can't imagine doing it for 15 additional years.

This.

[dresden doll]

I generally just can't imagine giving zero fucks about my debt load, with or without the cap.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I generally just can't imagine giving zero fucks about my debt load, with or without the cap.

I'm really good at denial and work pretty hard at ignoring it, so it doesn't keep me up at night or anything - but I still want to get the hell rid of it before 25 years.