Is offering the Hamilton morally wrong? Forum

[SFrost]

Qualifies you for upper middle class, sure, but doesn't guarantee it. Hence, the risk I mentioned earlier.

Also, FYI, 150k household income puts your parents somewhere in the top 5%. The available resources at that income level, should you get in to trouble after law school, don't quite compare to someone who has parents working at Wal-Mart.

[09042014]

Qualifies you for upper middle class, sure, but doesn't guarantee it. Hence, the risk I mentioned earlier.

Also, FYI, 150k household income puts your parents somewhere in the top 5%. The available resources at that income level, should you get in to trouble after law school, don't quite compare to someone who has parents working at Wal-Mart.

Why would you throw need aid to people who will overwhelming land jobs that pay more than 150k?

It makes a family amazingly rich but the poor first associate is disadvantaged?

The available resources at that income level, should you get in to trouble after law school, don't quite compare to someone who has parents working at Wal-Mart.

Actually it does compare. The debt is serviced based on income. Even if you are making 40k doing doc review, you wouldn't need parental support either way.

The only way it would make a significant difference is if you literally had no job. In which case having 250k or 150k in debt doesn't matter. You are paying zero either way. Need aid wouldn't help one bit.



8========}~~~

[SFrost]

I think you've put the blinders on for this subject. This isn't strictly my opinion. The cycle of poverty, debt risk, support systems, etc. are well-studied subjects.

Fortunately, the top schools have an enlightened approach to aid distribution; disenfranchised students are given equal footing with those from privileged backgrounds in need-based and need-aware aid.

[Hitchensian]

If we want to look at immoralities in the financing of legal education we should be looking at the ease with which unsuspecting morons are able to burden themselves with mortgage-sized federal loans to attend JD mills that will never return the "investment"...any problems posed by merit-based aid are negligible in comparison, morally speaking, IMHO.

[SFrost]

If we want to look at immoralities in the financing of legal education we should be looking at the ease with which unsuspecting morons are able to burden themselves with mortgage-sized federal loans to attend JD mills that will never return the "investment"...any problems posed by merit-based aid are negligible in comparison, morally speaking, IMHO.

Merit aid is a factor, though. Let's pick on Cooley, again. Cooley can only retain ABA accreditation because they are able to produce a certain percentage of bar-passing graduates. A large portion of the admitted students to Cooley have no chance of passing the bar (for wherever). The get around this, they recruit more capable students with merit aid and use attrition to kick out a good portion of the sticker students.

If merit aid were banned by the ABA most TTTs would be absolutely forced to lower tuition or reduce class size considerably.

[Hitchensian]

If we want to look at immoralities in the financing of legal education we should be looking at the ease with which unsuspecting morons are able to burden themselves with mortgage-sized federal loans to attend JD mills that will never return the "investment"...any problems posed by merit-based aid are negligible in comparison, morally speaking, IMHO.

Merit aid is a factor, though. Let's pick on Cooley, again. Cooley can only retain ABA accreditation because they are able to produce a certain percentage of bar-passing graduates. A large portion of the admitted students to Cooley have no chance of passing the bar (for wherever). The get around this, they recruit more capable students with merit aid and use attrition to kick out a good portion of the sticker students.

If merit aid were banned by the ABA most TTTs would be absolutely forced to lower tuition or reduce class size considerably.

Sounds to me like a much better way to approach the problem would be to just increase the standards for accreditation, necessarily precluding the Cooleys of the world from accreditation, and leaving the T14 and friends to continue their merit-based aid practices.

But I do recognize the point you make regardless.

[TheSpanishMain]

If we want to look at immoralities in the financing of legal education we should be looking at the ease with which unsuspecting morons are able to burden themselves with mortgage-sized federal loans to attend JD mills that will never return the "investment"...any problems posed by merit-based aid are negligible in comparison, morally speaking, IMHO.

Merit aid is a factor, though. Let's pick on Cooley, again. Cooley can only retain ABA accreditation because they are able to produce a certain percentage of bar-passing graduates. A large portion of the admitted students to Cooley have no chance of passing the bar (for wherever). The get around this, they recruit more capable students with merit aid and use attrition to kick out a good portion of the sticker students.

If merit aid were banned by the ABA most TTTs would be absolutely forced to lower tuition or reduce class size considerably.

+1000. Facilitating some rube's decision to attend a degree mill through federal loans is both bad policy and immoral.