Are successful/smart/hardworking students subsidizing others Forum

[Geist13]

If PI work is so difficult to get, why do I see so many people who struck out at OCI getting public interest work lined up after graduation?

Because OCI isn't exactly like stealing candy from a baby these days. We do go to schools in different ranges though, so we're speaking from different conceptions of OCI.

[Geist13]

and because those are internships, very few (if any) lead to actual jobs which is what we're talking about with LRAP.

[IAFG]

Don't CCN schools have a large enough endowment that tuition isn't substantially funding the school's operations/LRAP obligations anyway?!

[Bronte]

Don't CCN schools have a large enough endowment that tuition isn't substantially funding the school's operations/LRAP obligations anyway?!

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. That may or may not make a difference though to the argument that private practice law students are subsidizing public interest law students. Assuming the school is free to do whatever it wants with its endowment income, it could instead use that income to defray costs that tuition currently funds, thereby reducing tuition for everybody. On the other hand, if the funding that goes to LRAPs is earmarked by donor's specifically to be used for PI funding, that would be a different story. But I doubt that's the case.

[IAFG]

Don't CCN schools have a large enough endowment that tuition isn't substantially funding the school's operations/LRAP obligations anyway?!

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. That may or may not make a difference though to the argument that private practice law students are subsidizing public interest law students. Assuming the school is free to do whatever it wants with its endowment income, it could instead use that income to defray costs that tuition currently funds, thereby reducing tuition for everybody. On the other hand, if the funding that goes to LRAPs is earmarked by donor's specifically to be used for PI funding, that would be a different story. But I doubt that's the case.

I mean, it's market forces that are dictating tuition pricepoint not endowment size. So that's sort of a non-starter.

[American_in_China]

Why would anyone care? If I paid the tuition, it got me through school, now I'm making 160+ at biglaw, who would be vindictive enough to be mad that my tuition is being LRAPed for people doing public service positions? You're already making more money than like 95% of the United States, and 99% of the world. Is it that big a deal that your money gets spread among the "less fortunate" students at your school?

Do you hate the idea of progressive income taxes too?

[headandshoulderos]

another problem with this thread is that it equates successful students with being smart and/or hard working.

[Bronte]

Don't CCN schools have a large enough endowment that tuition isn't substantially funding the school's operations/LRAP obligations anyway?!

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. That may or may not make a difference though to the argument that private practice law students are subsidizing public interest law students. Assuming the school is free to do whatever it wants with its endowment income, it could instead use that income to defray costs that tuition currently funds, thereby reducing tuition for everybody. On the other hand, if the funding that goes to LRAPs is earmarked by donor's specifically to be used for PI funding, that would be a different story. But I doubt that's the case.

I mean, it's market forces that are dictating tuition pricepoint not endowment size. So that's sort of a non-starter.

I hear what you're saying, but, in any event, using endowment income to fund LRAP diverts that money from other sources. Again, I'm all for LRAP, but I do think it's a subsidy. However, at Michigan, you don't have to do public interest to qualify for LRAP--any JD required job qualifies--so it's really more of an insurance policy that students agree to up front.

[romothesavior]

OP, if your real name is paul, i think just figured out who you are

Do you go to CCN? Probably do then. Eh, don't really care either way.

yes i do go to CCN

Just wanted to say this is funny.

[IAFG]

I hear what you're saying, but, in any event, using endowment income to fund LRAP diverts that money from other sources. Again, I'm all for LRAP, but I do think it's a subsidy. However, at Michigan, you don't have to do public interest to qualify for LRAP--any JD required job qualifies--so it's really more of an insurance policy that students agree to up front.

Ah, I see. I am pretty sure that, at NU, it has to be at a non-profit or gov't, and also that you have to do PI right out of school (can't use it if you flame out of biglaw).

But I'm not sure. I don't know much about it, because I never thought I had the patience for PI.

[vanwinkle]

Now that IBR covers the majority of a grad's debts, schools are redoing their LRAP programs to require enrollment in IBR and only cover the smaller IBR-calculated payment. This means that school endowments can cover more PI students with less money, and most forgiveness or elimination of the debt occurs through the IBR program.

In other words, it's not the high-income alumni that are subsidizing folks now, it's taxpayers.

[IAFG]

Now that IBR covers the majority of a grad's debts, schools are redoing their LRAP programs to require enrollment in IBR and only cover the smaller IBR-calculated payment. This means that school endowments can cover more PI students with less money, and most forgiveness or elimination of the debt occurs through the IBR program.

In other words, it's not the high-income alumni that are subsidizing folks now, it's taxpayers.

But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of acting like an entitled fuckwad.

[paul_m86]

Now that IBR covers the majority of a grad's debts, schools are redoing their LRAP programs to require enrollment in IBR and only cover the smaller IBR-calculated payment. This means that school endowments can cover more PI students with less money, and most forgiveness or elimination of the debt occurs through the IBR program.

In other words, it's not the high-income alumni that are subsidizing folks now, it's taxpayers.

But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of acting like an entitled fuckwad.

Ah, reprimanding me for being on a high horse while getting on your own high horse to call people entitled fuckwads. Guess we can't be all as precious and pristine as you, IAFG. Are you one of those people who will fight to the death when anybody implies that law school grades might, to a degree, be based on hard work and intelligence? I guess to say otherwise would just be rude (and heavens, we can't have that).

[IAFG]

Now that IBR covers the majority of a grad's debts, schools are redoing their LRAP programs to require enrollment in IBR and only cover the smaller IBR-calculated payment. This means that school endowments can cover more PI students with less money, and most forgiveness or elimination of the debt occurs through the IBR program.

In other words, it's not the high-income alumni that are subsidizing folks now, it's taxpayers.

But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of acting like an entitled fuckwad.

Ah, reprimanding me for being on a high horse while getting on your own high horse to call people entitled fuckwads. Guess we can't be all as precious and pristine as you, IAFG. Are you one of those people who will fight to the death when anybody implies that law school grades might, to a degree, be based on hard work and intelligence? I guess to say otherwise would just be rude (and heavens, we can't have that).

If that's what you'd left it at "law school grades might, to a degree, be based on hard work and intelligence," I would have left you alone. But you're so far past that line that we're now solidly in "fuckwad" territory.

[Bronte]

Now that IBR covers the majority of a grad's debts, schools are redoing their LRAP programs to require enrollment in IBR and only cover the smaller IBR-calculated payment. This means that school endowments can cover more PI students with less money, and most forgiveness or elimination of the debt occurs through the IBR program.

In other words, it's not the high-income alumni that are subsidizing folks now, it's taxpayers.

But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of acting like an entitled fuckwad.

Ah, reprimanding me for being on a high horse while getting on your own high horse to call people entitled fuckwads. Guess we can't be all as precious and pristine as you, IAFG. Are you one of those people who will fight to the death when anybody implies that law school grades might, to a degree, be based on hard work and intelligence? I guess to say otherwise would just be rude (and heavens, we can't have that).

You're not really getting on a "high horse" though. You're expressing bitterness about your peers receiving LRAP money. But you agreed to this before hand. Whether you consider it a "subsidy for stupid kids" or a great cause, it's still something that you would have been able to take advantage of had you been in a worse situation. To complain about it now is like complaining about someone taking your money after you lose a bet.

[paul_m86]

Now that IBR covers the majority of a grad's debts, schools are redoing their LRAP programs to require enrollment in IBR and only cover the smaller IBR-calculated payment. This means that school endowments can cover more PI students with less money, and most forgiveness or elimination of the debt occurs through the IBR program.

In other words, it's not the high-income alumni that are subsidizing folks now, it's taxpayers.

But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of acting like an entitled fuckwad.

Ah, reprimanding me for being on a high horse while getting on your own high horse to call people entitled fuckwads. Guess we can't be all as precious and pristine as you, IAFG. Are you one of those people who will fight to the death when anybody implies that law school grades might, to a degree, be based on hard work and intelligence? I guess to say otherwise would just be rude (and heavens, we can't have that).

If that's what you'd left it at "law school grades might, to a degree, be based on hard work and intelligence," I would have left you alone. But you're so far past that line that we're now solidly in "fuckwad" territory.

So your problem was when I said something to the effect of "People who don't work as hard in law school tend to do worse than people who work hard. People who don't do as well as others at law school tend to end up in public interest as opposed to, say biglaw. The people who did well tend to end up in biglaw more so than, say public interest. Thus, as a class, are hardworking people subsidizing less hardworking people through programs such as LRAP?" Is that where the point of contention is? It sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to get upset about something to be honest.

[paul_m86]

You're not really getting on a "high horse" though. You're expressing bitterness about your peers receiving LRAP money. But you agreed to this before hand. Whether you consider it a "subsidy for stupid kids" or a great cause, it's still something that you would have been able to take advantage of had you been in a worse situation. To complain about it now is like complaining about someone taking your money after you lose a bet.

I'm probably not as bitter as I sound on here. I would a million times more rather be working biglaw and potentially subsidizing low performers, than working for a public interest organization making $45/yr and relying on LRAP. Anyway, the thread was mostly just throwing some thoughts around. Part of that question might be who foots the bill. If it's really seen as an implicit insurance agreement, then it might make sense for those who took advantage of that and are able to pay to foot the bill. Michigan's case sounds like a strong argument for this POV. If rather the subsidy is seen as something that incentivizes people to enter the public interest market, then it's a little curious why colleagues are footing the bill, as opposed to, say, alumni whose interests line up with certain causes or even the government.

[Gettingstarted1928]

OP, I would be embarrassed to post something like this on the internet, even though no one knows who you are. You are obviously an embarrassment to TLSers, which I don't think has ever happened in the history of TLS.

[mrloblaw]

OP, I would be embarrassed to post something like this on the internet, even though no one knows who you are. You are obviously an embarrassment to TLSers, which I don't think has ever happened in the history of TLS. I might even cancel my account.

Someone is clearly new around here.

[Gettingstarted1928]

OP, I would be embarrassed to post something like this on the internet, even though no one knows who you are. You are obviously an embarrassment to TLSers, which I don't think has ever happened in the history of TLS. I might even cancel my account.

Someone is clearly new around here.

Yeah, you're right. But this is pretty bad.

Maybe I'm just ranting, because I came to law school for PI and PI alone. Yes, I'm a dipshit loser.

[ToTransferOrNot]

You know what would make this thread awesome? If OP goes to Chicago, his "dumb-student subsidizing" LRAP subsidizes the dumbest of the dumb: federal clerks. Those slackers.

Also, I hear that people who go out for the DOJ, SEC, SG and the like are pretty stupid too. Seriously, freaking underachievers. I mean, look at all of those slacker judges on the 7th circuit! SG's office (Easterbrook), DOJ Antitrust (Wood) - if their schools had had LRAP programs when they graduated, they would have been prying subsidies from their betters!!

And man, Obama. Community organizing. What a dumb that guy is. Harvard EIC is for slackers.

Oh, and truly, only dumbs go to law school with the express desire of doing prosecution or defense work. That kind of work has no nobility to it whatsoever.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the OP is [misinformed] and should probably stop digging himself deeper.

[headandshoulderos]

OP, I would be embarrassed to post something like this on the internet, even though no one knows who you are. You are obviously an embarrassment to TLSers, which I don't think has ever happened in the history of TLS. I might even cancel my account.

Someone is clearly new around here.

Yeah, you're right. But this is pretty bad.

Maybe I'm just ranting, because I came to law school for PI and PI alone. Yes, I'm a dipshit loser.

u can find way more embarrassing shit on here. you don't even have to dig that deep.

[paul_m86]

OP, I would be embarrassed to post something like this on the internet, even though no one knows who you are. You are obviously an embarrassment to TLSers, which I don't think has ever happened in the history of TLS. I might even cancel my account.

Someone is clearly new around here.

Maybe I'm just ranting, because I came to law school for PI and PI alone. Yes, I'm a dipshit loser.

I generally don't have any problem with people who go to law school for PI and work in PI after graduation.

[paul_m86]

You know what would make this thread awesome? If OP goes to Chicago, his "dumb-student subsidizing" LRAP subsidizes the dumbest of the dumb: federal clerks. Those slackers.

Also, I hear that people who go out for the DOJ, SEC, SG and the like are pretty stupid too. Seriously, freaking underachievers. I mean, look at all of those slacker judges on the 7th circuit! SG's office (Easterbrook), DOJ Antitrust (Wood) - if their schools had had LRAP programs when they graduated, they would have been prying subsidies from their betters!!

And man, Obama. Community organizing. What a dumb that guy is. Harvard EIC is for slackers.

Oh, and truly, only dumbs go to law school with the express desire of doing prosecution or defense work. That kind of work has no nobility to it whatsoever.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the OP is [misinformed] and should probably stop digging himself deeper.

Picking out very specific examples when I've made it extremely clear this whole time that I'm speaking from a very broad perspective?

Also, as can be seen by Michigan specifically, different LRAPs have different incentive/subsidizing measures in place. I have no idea what UChicago's LRAP looks like to be honest.

[IAFG]

So your problem was when I said something to the effect of "People who don't work as hard in law school tend to do worse than people who work hard. People who don't do as well as others at law school tend to end up in public interest as opposed to, say biglaw. The people who did well tend to end up in biglaw more so than, say public interest. Thus, as a class, are hardworking people subsidizing less hardworking people through programs such as LRAP?" Is that where the point of contention is? It sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to get upset about something to be honest.

Bolded is what I primarily take issue with, because I don't think it's true. That said, even if you're right, I don't think it's factually accurate that your tuition is significantly "subsidizing" LRAP. Do you know that the per-student spending outweighs tuition after you deduct merit aid? I can't find the data, but I strongly suspect most of that money is (technically) getting spent to benefit you. If I am wrong, I will concede that you might be partially subsidizing "low performers," but I think you're making an unwarranted assumption, and even if you are, the amount you subsidize them is minimal.

FWIW I am not paying sticker and (God willing) not taking advantage of my school's LRAP, so I don't have any skin in this game. I just know my PI friends who stuck with PI after OCI could easily have landed biglaw if they'd wanted to.