Top Law Schools

Wooster33 wrote:

IIRC, this was one of the ways the gov. is able to afford IBR.

Exactly, it will not "save money." And I take issue with the government being able to afford this program--1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year. Hey, but I can see how a lot of posters think it's pretty cool the taxpayer is going to pay for their overpriced t14 law degree. But I don't see how the same posters can argue it is a sound and necessary policy.

For one, it encourages movement within the socioeconomic ladder. I for one would likely not be transferring this upcoming year to a "top school" if it wasn't for IBR. I am poor and basically the first person in my family to graduate college, let alone go to law school, LET ALONE go to a "top school." This could really be a "see, hard works pays off in America" kind of policy encouragement. This is just one way that it is very beneficial.

A'nold wrote:

Wooster33 wrote:

You do know that IBR actually save the gov. a crap ton of $, right?

No, it does not. You may be thinking of the government takeover of the student loan industry whereby the government will eliminate some costs by directly lending to students rather than bribing private lenders to do so.

IIRC, this was one of the ways the gov. is able to afford IBR.

Carving IBR out of the comprehensive reforms put forward in the CCRAA is a very misleading way to evaluate costs. The CCRAA as passed was projected to reduce direct spending on student loans by well over $35 billion from 2007-12. (Source* (LinkRemoved)).


*I have no interest in looking up the CBO report on the elimination of the FFELP program, as that provision is incorporated in the health care reform bill. Nonetheless, those savings were intended to be rolled into Pell grant spending, so it is likely of no effect on the issue.

A'nold wrote:

Wooster33 wrote:

IIRC, this was one of the ways the gov. is able to afford IBR.

Exactly, it will not "save money." And I take issue with the government being able to afford this program--1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year. Hey, but I can see how a lot of posters think it's pretty cool the taxpayer is going to pay for their overpriced t14 law degree. But I don't see how the same posters can argue it is a sound and necessary policy.

For one, it encourages movement within the socioeconomic ladder. I for one would likely not be transferring this upcoming year to a "top school" if it wasn't for IBR. I am poor and basically the first person in my family to graduate college, let alone go to law school, LET ALONE go to a "top school." This could really be a "see, hard works pays off in America" kind of policy encouragement. This is just one way that it is very beneficial.

Just what the government ought to be spending taxpayer money on during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression--incentivizing people to attend TTT law schools when the legal market is already saturated.

A'nold, you are a really nice guy and I am happy you get to pursue your dream. But should the taxpayer be footing the bill so you can pursue your dream? A dream that, like it or not, is not in harmony with sound public policy. The last thing the government should be doing is encouraging more people to attend law school.

Wooster33 wrote:

A'nold wrote:

Wooster33 wrote:

IIRC, this was one of the ways the gov. is able to afford IBR.

Exactly, it will not "save money." And I take issue with the government being able to afford this program--1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year. Hey, but I can see how a lot of posters think it's pretty cool the taxpayer is going to pay for their overpriced t14 law degree. But I don't see how the same posters can argue it is a sound and necessary policy.

For one, it encourages movement within the socioeconomic ladder. I for one would likely not be transferring this upcoming year to a "top school" if it wasn't for IBR. I am poor and basically the first person in my family to graduate college, let alone go to law school, LET ALONE go to a "top school." This could really be a "see, hard works pays off in America" kind of policy encouragement. This is just one way that it is very beneficial.

Just what the government ought to be spending taxpayer money on during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression--incentivizing people to attend TTT law schools when the legal market is already saturated.

A'nold, you are a really nice guy and I am happy you get to pursue your dream. But should the taxpayer be footing the bill so you can pursue your dream? A dream that, like it or not, is not in harmony with sound public policy. The last thing the government should be doing is encouraging more people to attend law school.

I see your point, but on the other hand, you have tuition prices absolutely through the roof and if not for these loans people in the lower rung of society could never afford law school. Maybe this would force half the law schools in the country to close shop and create a near perfect job placement rate for graduates, but on the other hand you would basically see the rich get richer while the poor have no shot of bettering their lives, at least via schooling.

I see your point, but on the other hand, you have tuition prices absolutely through the roof and if not for these loans people in the lower rung of society could never afford law school. Maybe this would force half the law schools in the country to close shop and create a near perfect job placement rate for graduates, but on the other hand you would basically see the rich get richer while the poor have no shot of bettering their lives, at least via schooling

Government subsidization of the education industry via easy credit and grants and now IBR is a big cause of inflation in tuition. There is no easy solution. if you up the credit standards or reduce grants there is less access to education, but if you don't the government continues to contribute to rising tuition. At the very least the government should be choosier about where it will issue its loans. I would propose only issuing government loans where the institution can offer a solid cost-benefit analysis in their favor (good bye Cooley!). Of course, this will never happen, as Americans have been brainwashed into thinking higher education is a right and always, always good for them economically.

Wooster33 wrote:

I see your point, but on the other hand, you have tuition prices absolutely through the roof and if not for these loans people in the lower rung of society could never afford law school. Maybe this would force half the law schools in the country to close shop and create a near perfect job placement rate for graduates, but on the other hand you would basically see the rich get richer while the poor have no shot of bettering their lives, at least via schooling

Government subsidization of the education industry via easy credit and grants and now IBR is a big cause of inflation in tuition. There is no easy solution. if you up the credit standards or reduce grants there is less access to education, but if you don't the government continues to contribute to rising tuition. At the very least the government should be choosier about where it will issue its loans. I would propose only issuing government loans where the institution can offer a solid cost-benefit analysis in their favor (good bye Cooley!). Of course, this will never happen, as Americans have been brainwashed into thinking higher education is a right and always, always good for them economically.

We are in perfect agreement on the issuing of loans to certain schools idea. Some kind of small agency could determine an objective criteria for this. There should be stricter standards on private schools but maybe do something to make exceptions for the schools like up to Boston College or something and pretty much give full-funding to all of the state schools. All of the money grubbing crap privates would have to drastically lower tuition or get out of the law school game.

Wooster33 wrote:

A'nold wrote:

Wooster33 wrote:

IIRC, this was one of the ways the gov. is able to afford IBR.

Exactly, it will not "save money." And I take issue with the government being able to afford this program--1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year. Hey, but I can see how a lot of posters think it's pretty cool the taxpayer is going to pay for their overpriced t14 law degree. But I don't see how the same posters can argue it is a sound and necessary policy.

For one, it encourages movement within the socioeconomic ladder. I for one would likely not be transferring this upcoming year to a "top school" if it wasn't for IBR. I am poor and basically the first person in my family to graduate college, let alone go to law school, LET ALONE go to a "top school." This could really be a "see, hard works pays off in America" kind of policy encouragement. This is just one way that it is very beneficial.

Just what the government ought to be spending taxpayer money on during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression--incentivizing people to attend TTT law schools when the legal market is already saturated.

A'nold, you are a really nice guy and I am happy you get to pursue your dream. But should the taxpayer be footing the bill so you can pursue your dream? A dream that, like it or not, is not in harmony with sound public policy. The last thing the government should be doing is encouraging more people to attend law school.

Actually, most schools of economic thought argue for just that. Growth in the Gov. sector during town turns. Classic Keynesian model.

Guys, this is Woosters thing.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=115245

He is the resident anti-IBR troll. It's the weirdest thing on TLS, but really pointless to engage.

Somebody link to something that shows that IBR doesn't pay for itself. I wouldn't be surprised if it does, I bet a lot of people who don't do PSLF end up paying more under IBR than they would under a standard plan.