Hastings Forum

[drdolittle]

...This means your loan forgiveness will be sizable. Any amount forgiven will result in taxable income. If you have $100,000 forgiven, you will now owe the IRS $35,000 in taxes.(200,000 turns into 70k) The only thing worse than having student loan debt is having tax debt. The IRS will get their money.

For all your cock-sure rhetoric, your tax "advice" is definitely wrong. Student loan forgiveness (e.g. LRAP) is specifically excluded from gross income even though it's discharge of indebtedness, which is ordinarily taxed. (see US Code sec 108, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/108.html)

You obviously have a major hurt up your ass re: Hastings, not sure why but carry-on if it makes you happy. If you weren't so aggressive and assertive, maybe you'd be worth listening to...

Btw, I remember you as "BiteyTLS." Weren't you headed to IU last year on big $ or something, and happy to do it? What the hell are you doing poasting here then, once again bitching about CA & the bay area market, etc? Some things never change.

[Bitey]

...This means your loan forgiveness will be sizable. Any amount forgiven will result in taxable income. If you have $100,000 forgiven, you will now owe the IRS $35,000 in taxes.(200,000 turns into 70k) The only thing worse than having student loan debt is having tax debt. The IRS will get their money.

For all your cock-sure rhetoric, your tax "advice" is definitely wrong. Student loan forgiveness (e.g. LRAP) is specifically excluded from gross income even though it's discharge of indebtedness, which is ordinarily taxed. (see US Code sec 108, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/108.html)

You obviously have a major hurt up your ass re: Hastings, not sure why but carry-on if it makes you happy. If you weren't so aggressive and assertive, maybe you'd be worth listening to...

Btw, I remember you as "BiteyTLS." Weren't you headed to IU last year on big $ or something, and happy to do it? What the hell are you doing poasting here then, once again bitching about CA & the bay area market, etc? Some things never change.

Wrong guy, I am not that other poster.

LRAP is lovely if you can find a government or non-for-profit job. But those as rare as ever (CA's government is cutting everything, http://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-shu ... 53218.html)- you most likely end up with shitlaw or doc reivew. Which don't qualify.

I was talking about the 25 year, private sector program. It is taxable. Period.

Will forgiven loan amounts be taxed as income?
The U.S. Department of the Treasury determined that debt forgiven through PSLF is not considered taxable income under current law. That means that when you qualify for PSLF, you won't get slapped with a huge tax bill.
Unfortunately, the same good news doesn't extend to debt forgiven through IBR. In response, Congressman Sandy Levin (D-MI) is leading a bipartisan effort to ensure that borrowers who qualify for loan forgiveness through IBR (and Income Contingent Repayment) get the same treatment. Responsible borrowers with modest incomes shouldn't have to pay potentially crippling taxes on forgiven student loans. We are hopeful that this issue will be resolved before any borrowers qualify for forgiveness through IBR. We'll continue to work on this issue and keep you informed. Urge your representatives to support H.R. 2492. Learn more about the bill.

http://www.ibrinfo.org/faq.vp.html#_Will_forgiven_loan

Protip: Read the FAQ.

[bk1]

However, the biggest problem with your data is it simply doesn't exist. Law School Transparency only has 2 years of data available and both of them are during a recession. This essentially means the data is worthless. You can't even run a time-series linear regression with the data because it only has 2 periods. Minitab, SPSS, Excel will all come back with an "ERROR" after trying to run a regression. LST provides insights into the current labor market but CANNOT be used to predict future labor market conditions. Even assuming a static model, with no recession and no "cobweb" lags, the data is still useless for predicting the labor market in 2-3 years.

Considering the 6 figures worth of money that law school costs, I think it's prudent to just assume it won't get any better.

[kapital98]

Has anyone really ascertained the reason why Indiana shot up some 13 places from 36 to 23? Was it a matter of the generous scholarship allotment (I just got a full ride for numbers not far above median) toward higher scoring students, thereby pushing up incoming class scores for the News&Review?

Bitey joined August. 25, 2008. BiteyTLS joined Sept. 18, 2008.

The coincidence of "Bitey" and the time (especially 3 years ago) is far too great for this to be random.

I'm guessing Bitey did poorly in 1L and now just wants to hate on others with his shadow account. Look at the number of posts of Bitey vs. BiteyTLS. 231 vs. 14 (and that's counting this thread.) Is it really surprising the most cynical people are 0L's and poorly performed 2/3L's?

If Bitey does not stop trolling I will be forced to report him.

[vb007]

i'm a rising 3L at hastings. my friends all found some sort of position for the summer. some had to take unpaid positions though (maybe 1/3 of 2L class, vast majority of 1L class). a large portion of my friends who graduated do not have a job lined up. i don't think this is abnormal though. everyone i know from the class of 2009 and class of 2010 has a solid, paying job.

none of the above is speculation/opinion. just wanted to provide some real info for those interested.

[kapital98]

However, the biggest problem with your data is it simply doesn't exist. Law School Transparency only has 2 years of data available and both of them are during a recession. This essentially means the data is worthless. You can't even run a time-series linear regression with the data because it only has 2 periods. Minitab, SPSS, Excel will all come back with an "ERROR" after trying to run a regression. LST provides insights into the current labor market but CANNOT be used to predict future labor market conditions. Even assuming a static model, with no recession and no "cobweb" lags, the data is still useless for predicting the labor market in 2-3 years.

Considering the 6 figures worth of money that law school costs, I think it's prudent to just assume it won't get any better.

That's blatently ignoring classical economics and modern labor theory. But, whatever...

[Bitey]

Wrong, data says the opposite:

--LinkRemoved--

The school only has data for 35 percent of law students. The rest could be on doc review, unemployed or working at taco bell. Think about that, potentially 65 percent of graduates aren't working law jobs. For students that 150k+ in debt, that has to be pretty scary.

This is a massive flame. 11% are unemployed after graduation. The rest ARE employed but did not report their income or job. You can't say that they work at Taco Bell anymore than you can say they work in Biglaw. To outweigh your pessimism i'll make the (faulty) claim that the 50% who did not report their job all ended up making $170K each year but just didn't have the time to report it.

However, the biggest problem with your data is it simply doesn't exist. Law School Transparency only has 2 years of data available and both of them are during a recession. This essentially means the data is worthless. You can't even run a time-series linear regression with the data because it only has 2 periods. Minitab, SPSS, Excel will all come back with an "ERROR" after trying to run a regression. LST provides insights into the current labor market but CANNOT be used to predict future labor market conditions. Even assuming a static model, with no recession and no "cobweb" lags, the data is still useless for predicting the labor market in 2-3 years.

I'm not responding to you again. Please leave the thread so we can get back to the issue at point -- current student's perception of Hastings.

Right, because CA is in a great recovery right now! The fact that you think major law jobs are going to start appearing, despite the biggest supply of lawyers in American history and major structural issues with the legal market is downright delusional. CA has the second biggest surplus of lawyers in the nation: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ss&emc=rss.

Again, "issue at point" means that you don't like disconfirming evidence and would rather live in your bubble world. Maybe we could talk about homeopathy or your reiki therapist next?

[Bitey]

i'm a rising 3L at hastings. my friends all found some sort of position for the summer. some had to take unpaid positions though (maybe 1/3 of 2L class, vast majority of 1L class). a large portion of my friends who graduated do not have a job lined up. i don't think this is abnormal though. everyone i know from the class of 2009 and class of 2010 has a solid, paying job.

none of the above is speculation/opinion. just wanted to provide some real info for those interested.

This is called anecdotal evidence...but thanks for your input

[bk1]

That's blatently ignoring classical economics and modern labor theory. But, whatever...

So what would you suggest?

[Bitey]

However, the biggest problem with your data is it simply doesn't exist. Law School Transparency only has 2 years of data available and both of them are during a recession. This essentially means the data is worthless. You can't even run a time-series linear regression with the data because it only has 2 periods. Minitab, SPSS, Excel will all come back with an "ERROR" after trying to run a regression. LST provides insights into the current labor market but CANNOT be used to predict future labor market conditions. Even assuming a static model, with no recession and no "cobweb" lags, the data is still useless for predicting the labor market in 2-3 years.

Considering the 6 figures worth of money that law school costs, I think it's prudent to just assume it won't get any better.

That's blatently ignoring classical economics and modern labor theory. But, whatever...

You're such a fake at economics it's silly.

How much debt are you taking out? 150k, 200k? Did you know that it is completely non-dischargable in bankruptcy and follows you around for the rest of your days?

[kapital98]

i'm a rising 3L at hastings. my friends all found some sort of position for the summer. some had to take unpaid positions though (maybe 1/3 of 2L class, vast majority of 1L class). a large portion of my friends who graduated do not have a job lined up. i don't think this is abnormal though. everyone i know from the class of 2009 and class of 2010 has a solid, paying job.

none of the above is speculation/opinion. just wanted to provide some real info for those interested.

Thank you. It's greatly appreciated.

[Bitey]

Has anyone really ascertained the reason why Indiana shot up some 13 places from 36 to 23? Was it a matter of the generous scholarship allotment (I just got a full ride for numbers not far above median) toward higher scoring students, thereby pushing up incoming class scores for the News&Review?

Bitey joined August. 25, 2008. BiteyTLS joined Sept. 18, 2008.

The coincidence of "Bitey" and the time (especially 3 years ago) is far too great for this to be random.

I'm guessing Bitey did poorly in 1L and now just wants to hate on others with his shadow account. Look at the number of posts of Bitey vs. BiteyTLS. 231 vs. 14 (and that's counting this thread.) Is it really surprising the most cynical people are 0L's and poorly performed 2/3L's?

If Bitey does not stop trolling I will be forced to report him.

This is great conspiracy theory in action.

I got one too- are you really Karl Marx? After all your account is called "kapital", likely named after his great volume! If invert 98 to 89 you have the fall of the soviet union!!! Bible code skills.

But please, report me for the crime of cognitive dissonance.

[kapital98]

However, the biggest problem with your data is it simply doesn't exist. Law School Transparency only has 2 years of data available and both of them are during a recession. This essentially means the data is worthless. You can't even run a time-series linear regression with the data because it only has 2 periods. Minitab, SPSS, Excel will all come back with an "ERROR" after trying to run a regression. LST provides insights into the current labor market but CANNOT be used to predict future labor market conditions. Even assuming a static model, with no recession and no "cobweb" lags, the data is still useless for predicting the labor market in 2-3 years.

Considering the 6 figures worth of money that law school costs, I think it's prudent to just assume it won't get any better.

That's blatently ignoring classical economics and modern labor theory. But, whatever...

You're such a fake at economics it's silly.

How much debt are you taking out? 150k, 200k? Did you know that it is completely non-dischargable in bankruptcy and follows you around for the rest of your days?

A cost-benefit analysis is going to factor in monetary factors and non-monetary factors. Some people derive pleasure from simply "being" a lawyer. In this case you would want to try to quantify the qualitative variable. You can apply the same reasoning to other variables (location, prestige, office job, etc...)

I'm completely aware of what you are saying. Most models assume perfect information but they also assume probability. In reality perfect information doesn't exist (ex: bad law school grad stats) but you can research the issue.

BK, just because you post on TLS all the time doesn't make you right. Some of the advice you give is good but some of it is just plain awful.

If you want to talk about economics I'll gladly have a PM conversation with you. It's rather annoying when people say the conventional wisdom of TLS and then claim to know economics

[drdolittle]

Btw, I remember you as "BiteyTLS." Weren't you headed to IU last year on big $ or something, and happy to do it? What the hell are you doing poasting here then, once again bitching about CA & the bay area market, etc? Some things never change.

Wrong guy, I am not that other poster.

I actually enjoyed old Bitey's posts. You write essentially in an identical style, I'm fairly certain the two Biteys are the same. I know the current Bitey won't like this b/c it's anecdotal, but I'll still believe it. I don't really care, I was just wondering whatever happened to the old Bitey, whose aggressive/assertive rants against various targets like McGeorge - calling it once a festering third tier toilet - etc, were memorable.

[bk1]

BK, just because you post on TLS all the time doesn't make you right. Some of the advice you give is good but some of it is just plain awful.

lol I never made the claim that I'm always right (or that post count has anything to do with that) and have been wrong plenty of times before.

[kapital98]

This is great conspiracy theory in action.

I got one too- are you really Karl Marx? After all your account is called "kapital", likely named after his great volume! If invert 98 to 89 you have the fall of the soviet union!!! Bible code skills.

But please, report me for the crime of cognitive dissonance.

You are smart

My username is named after Marx's Kapital: Volume I. Kapital is the German word for 'capital.' Modern theory still uses 'K' as shorthand for "capital."

The numbers represent the reverse of my birth year.

I'm surprised you didn't come up with something regarding Sartre or Beauvoir (my avatar.)

You're "conspiracy theory" was almost perfect

[Borhas]

BK, just because you post on TLS all the time doesn't make you right. Some of the advice you give is good but some of it is just plain awful.

lol I never made the claim that I'm always right (or that post count has anything to do with that) and have been wrong plenty of times before.

I think Kap mistook you for Bitey

[Bitey]

LEt's all be friends. My favorite two posters on this site are ndirish and bk187. Both should just answer all "choosing a law school" threads.

I'm not a fake at economics because I listen to EconTalk. Makes me educated.

[drdolittle]

BK, just because you post on TLS all the time doesn't make you right. Some of the advice you give is good but some of it is just plain awful.

lol I never made the claim that I'm always right (or that post count has anything to do with that) and have been wrong plenty of times before.

The sad reality is that for CA and the bay area in particular, outside of the top national schools (of which there are less than 14), plus of course Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC, Hastings is about as good as it gets for CA/bay area law job prospects. The tuition is ridiculous and the job prospects aren't anywhere they should be, but for anyone who effectively has stay in Cali and can't get into said other schools, it might be the only viable option (outside of giving up on law school altogether). But there's no question that unless the tuition goes down and/or the econ picks up significant steam, Hastings/Davis, and most other non truly top law schools are on an unsustainable path in CA and elsewhere...

[Borhas]

Right, because CA is in a great recovery right now! The fact that you think major law jobs are going to start appearing, despite the biggest supply of lawyers in American history and major structural issues with the legal market is downright delusional. CA has the second biggest surplus of lawyers in the nation: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ss&emc=rss.

Again, "issue at point" means that you don't like disconfirming evidence and would rather live in your bubble world. Maybe we could talk about homeopathy or your reiki therapist next?

You are right in that legal market hiring won't get much better, and will likely remain stagnant, but CA doesn't do so badly as far as lawyer surplus on a per capita level... it's about middle of the road in that regard. Could be worse, could be New Jersey and have the same surplus of lawyers at 1/4 the population.

[kapital98]

BK, just because you post on TLS all the time doesn't make you right. Some of the advice you give is good but some of it is just plain awful.

lol I never made the claim that I'm always right (or that post count has anything to do with that) and have been wrong plenty of times before.

I think Kap mistook you for Bitey

I did. I apologize

I still stand by my comments in general but in this circumstance it is clear that BK was being genuine. In that I apologize.

BK: One of the best models to explain the legal market is a "cobwebb" labor theory. In this situation you have 2 lagged variables. Prices, in labor theory wages, are lagged. Input of human capital (i.e. lawyers) are also lagged.

When wages are high a lot of people want to be lawyers. However, when all of these people enter the market wages go down, people leave the market, and lawyers tend to go back to equilibrium. The major difference between this model and traditional neoclassical economics is the market will never go to it's true equilibrium ("effecient" supply will never = demand.)

It's important to note that it takes a lot of time to become a lawyer (3-7 years depending on how you want to measure.) By the times wages change the people who are already on track to graduate will not be able to change their decision to be a lawyer without severe loss (either they go into a market with lower wages or they cut their loses -- either way it's bad for them.) This is why you want to go into law school at the end of a recession and make sure not to go into when at the end of an expansionary period.

The elephant in the room that I have not addressed is the recession. This is a jobless recession and, when factoring in the lag period of becoming a lawyer, greatly explains why the legal market has been so bad. I've explained the cyclical nature of the legal profession in much greater detail in my older posts (I'll provide a link if necessary.)

It's primarily this lag period and a jobless recession that makes the legal market look so bad. Beyond that you have to take into account the structure of the legal market. Almost constant supply and increasing demand. This is what almost everyone harps on because it's the easiest to understand. There are serious problems with the legal market but they will get better. Will they get back to the 2006-07 levels? Maybe, it really depends on what the 'equilibrium' wage is and whether lawyers were overpaid before the recession. Traditional theory would dictate employment goes back to equilibrium but wages decrease. This may not happen due to the market structure of the legal profession.

[kapital98]

This is a graph of the cobwebb model:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 66&bih=667

[bk1]

No problem.

But it's not like pre-recession levels were fantastic for schools of Hastings quality either. I mean for the graduating class of 2005, at least 20% of Hastings grads did not find full time legal employment (and I say at least because the percentage of part time jobs for that year is unknown to my knowledge). And back then the number of people who could pay off sticker price debt was still quite small. Source: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/composite.pdf

So even if we return to something close to pre-recession levels (which there is no guarantee) Hastings is quite a risky place if one is taking on quite a lot of debt.

[Borhas]

It's not really the success rate (full time JD required employment) that is killer, but the debt...

in '05 Hastings and Davis were about on par w/ USC... well things are a little bit different now, obviously, but even in the glory days UCLA had a success rate of 84% (hardly world beating), USC, Davis, and Hastings had about 78% success rate... not a HUGE difference. The biggest difference between '05 and now is that NorCal has done worse than SoCal, and the US now is doing worse than the US back then (well it was all fake wealth, but it felt real)... that and tuition is even higher.

[kapital98]

No problem.

But it's not like pre-recession levels were fantastic for schools of Hastings quality either. I mean for the graduating class of 2005, at least 20% of Hastings grads did not find full time legal employment (and I say at least because the percentage of part time jobs for that year is unknown to my knowledge). And back then the number of people who could pay off sticker price debt was still quite small. Source: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/composite.pdf

So even if we return to something close to pre-recession levels (which there is no guarantee) Hastings is quite a risky place if one is taking on quite a lot of debt.

I really like this data. It's still one of the best ways to gauge a school's employment relative to others schools and during an economic expansion.

To be clear: The graph shows 15% were unemployed. This fits well with the bar failure rate. If people do not pass the bar they are unlikely to be employed. This is certainly not the only cause of unemployment but I think it would be a mistake to say Hastings did not have good placement before the recession.

The pre-recession years were relatively nice compared to other sectors of the economy.