How Georgetown Law gets Uncle Sam to pay its students’ bills
August 12, 2013 9:19 AM Subscribe
In the realm of higher ed, law schools are at the forefront of finding creative ways to maximize revenue. Georgetown Law has pioneered an academic Ponzi scheme where they are able to essentially use the Federal loan money given to new students to pay for public interest law graduates' loans.
If 5% of Georgetown students do this, it's not a Ponzi scheme. If 50% do it, maybe.
Top law schools have always subsidized public interest lawyers with tuition dollars, and that tuition has been paid by loans for decades. It's a sound portfolio theory, cespecially since top public lawyers often end up in positions of power later in life.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:26 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Top law schools have always subsidized public interest lawyers with tuition dollars, and that tuition has been paid by loans for decades. It's a sound portfolio theory, cespecially since top public lawyers often end up in positions of power later in life.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:26 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, +1 for not really seeing the outrage, so long as the money actually funds LRAP. If the private sector scenario the article describes comes to pass, that'd be a different story.
posted by eugenen at 9:40 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by eugenen at 9:40 AM on August 12, 2013
As long as GULC's tuition is in line with peers its hard to see the outrage. Money is fungible.
posted by JPD at 9:42 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JPD at 9:42 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
What are we supposed to be outraged about?
posted by gyc at 9:43 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by gyc at 9:43 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
The private sector scenario wouldn't allow GULC's tuition to be in line with its peers (unless all its peers pulled the same stunt.)
posted by Obscure Reference at 9:43 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Obscure Reference at 9:43 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Fraud tags? Really?
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:46 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:46 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
The author writes this piece as if every dollar of tuition money paid by GULC students gets forgiven, but doesn't take into account the fact that people who get into, and graduate from, GULC are in high demand in the private sector, and do not end up with <$75k public sector jobs unless they have a passion for that work. Especially not for 10 years.
Without statistics about the actually amount of Grad PLUS money loaned to GULC students that ends up forgiven, it just seems like baseless speculation.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:51 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Without statistics about the actually amount of Grad PLUS money loaned to GULC students that ends up forgiven, it just seems like baseless speculation.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:51 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think that law schools in general have ripped a lot of people off in the past decade or so, and I'm probably on record here as being unable to talk rationally about student loans, but I don't actually see the outrage here, other than perhaps the generalized outrage around a school charging ridiculous amounts of money to its students who are probably not as well informed as they should be about the expected salaries coming out of law school.
Can someone explain?
posted by gauche at 9:54 AM on August 12, 2013
Can someone explain?
posted by gauche at 9:54 AM on August 12, 2013
What part of that scheme increases Georgetown's bottom line?
It doesn't, but it may allow them to get more elite students who plan on going into public service to come to Georgetown?
The part I don't understand is that as long as the students actually do go into the public sector, there really isn't an issue here. Fraud would come into play if the students went elsewhere, but that didn't seem to be proven in the article unless I misunderstood.
posted by cell divide at 10:01 AM on August 12, 2013
It doesn't, but it may allow them to get more elite students who plan on going into public service to come to Georgetown?
The part I don't understand is that as long as the students actually do go into the public sector, there really isn't an issue here. Fraud would come into play if the students went elsewhere, but that didn't seem to be proven in the article unless I misunderstood.
posted by cell divide at 10:01 AM on August 12, 2013
Money is fungible. So the description of a "ponzi scheme" is inapt.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:02 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by Ironmouth at 10:02 AM on August 12, 2013
I'm just glad they used a picture from Suits to illustrate the article, because, really, Suits doesn't get talked about enough. It's a great show.
posted by Etrigan at 10:13 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by Etrigan at 10:13 AM on August 12, 2013
Anyone--not just Georgetown Law graduates--with the right loans can take advantage of the 10 year forgiveness for public service. Anyone--not just GULC grads--can qualify for income based repayment. The only unique feature here is Georgetown's LRAP--which is basically Georgetown making your student loan payment for you. GULC's LRAP is not very easy to qualify for, actually (I had to pay my LRAP back because of a gap in employment) and is largely funded by alumni donations.
I don't see the outrage here--unless you get annoyed my schools soliciting donations from alumni who have already paid lots of money to the school to attend it.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:14 AM on August 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
I don't see the outrage here--unless you get annoyed my schools soliciting donations from alumni who have already paid lots of money to the school to attend it.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:14 AM on August 12, 2013 [4 favorites]
Actually, I don't know that Georgetown's LRAP is *still* largely funded by alumni donations, but it was when I last involved with it.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:17 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by crush-onastick at 10:17 AM on August 12, 2013
Yes, there's no "ponzi scheme" going on.
It seems like what this article is alleging is that they are artificially inflating the price of tuition and letting the government pay it, due to the structure of the income-based repayment program. I think the real worry is that the income-based repayment plan, paired with university-funded repayment guarantees, will serve to ratchet up the average tuition for these programs.
posted by demiurge at 10:19 AM on August 12, 2013
It seems like what this article is alleging is that they are artificially inflating the price of tuition and letting the government pay it, due to the structure of the income-based repayment program. I think the real worry is that the income-based repayment plan, paired with university-funded repayment guarantees, will serve to ratchet up the average tuition for these programs.
posted by demiurge at 10:19 AM on August 12, 2013
Can someone explain?
I think the argument is that tuition must be higher than it would otherwise be in order to make loan payments during the 10 years prior to forgiveness. That's the only money that the students do not pay in this scenario that they would otherwise be on the hook for. The school then is using loan money that it knows will be forgiven to pay the interest on other loans, essentially using federal money to make payments that the federal loan forgiveness program intended for the working student to pay on an income basis. This does seem like something that there should be rules against, but there aren't, and it's certainly not fraudulent.
And the term "Ponzi scheme" apparently doesn't mean anything any more.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:21 AM on August 12, 2013
I think the argument is that tuition must be higher than it would otherwise be in order to make loan payments during the 10 years prior to forgiveness. That's the only money that the students do not pay in this scenario that they would otherwise be on the hook for. The school then is using loan money that it knows will be forgiven to pay the interest on other loans, essentially using federal money to make payments that the federal loan forgiveness program intended for the working student to pay on an income basis. This does seem like something that there should be rules against, but there aren't, and it's certainly not fraudulent.
And the term "Ponzi scheme" apparently doesn't mean anything any more.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:21 AM on August 12, 2013
Wait until you hear about the Ponzi Scheme Ohio State has in place to fund it's football program. Jesus Christ...
Fairly recent GULC grad, and anyone claiming the public interest program is a problem in legal education, let alone a high priority one, is full of shit and hiding their own more insipid agenda.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:27 AM on August 12, 2013
Fairly recent GULC grad, and anyone claiming the public interest program is a problem in legal education, let alone a high priority one, is full of shit and hiding their own more insipid agenda.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:27 AM on August 12, 2013
Georgetown tuition is $50890 for 2013-14, which is right in the same range of basically all comparable law schools in America.
There's a conversation here about the high cost of law schools, and how IBR generally shields some students from bearing the full costs potentially at the future expense of taxpayers. There's a question as to whether the government needs to be subsidizing outsized costs of creating more lawyers in an already glutted legal market, and if not, what should become of current students who are relying on that subsidy.
This article does not approach that conversation, and like a lot of "Wonkblog" filler pumped out by alleged wunderkind Dylan Matthews, is sensationalist to the point of being unintelligible.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:34 AM on August 12, 2013 [6 favorites]
There's a conversation here about the high cost of law schools, and how IBR generally shields some students from bearing the full costs potentially at the future expense of taxpayers. There's a question as to whether the government needs to be subsidizing outsized costs of creating more lawyers in an already glutted legal market, and if not, what should become of current students who are relying on that subsidy.
This article does not approach that conversation, and like a lot of "Wonkblog" filler pumped out by alleged wunderkind Dylan Matthews, is sensationalist to the point of being unintelligible.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:34 AM on August 12, 2013 [6 favorites]
sensationalist to the point of being unintelligible.
A perfect description. It was a horrible read.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:37 AM on August 12, 2013
A perfect description. It was a horrible read.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:37 AM on August 12, 2013
This is only the beginning. This practice will likely extend into a system where elite students who plan to go into the private sector are recruited and promised loan forgiveness, while tuition skyrockets ever higher for students in the middle and at the bottom of the class. There is no upper limit on how much one can borrow with a Grad Plus loan, so as long as there are naive students willing to pay to go to Georgetown, the school can keep raising tuition to infinity.
Don't look at the system as it is how. Think about the logical, grotesque direction that an institution unfettered b ethics or morals can take this practice.
posted by reenum at 10:38 AM on August 12, 2013
Don't look at the system as it is how. Think about the logical, grotesque direction that an institution unfettered b ethics or morals can take this practice.
posted by reenum at 10:38 AM on August 12, 2013
I also enjoy how in the interest of making this sound shocking and terrible and fraudulent instead of just, you know, working the system to the greatest advantage, the article pretends that GULC has no endowment. "They're using incoming students' loan money to pay outgoing students' obligations!" Well, yeah. That's the cash flow. And if there were zero incoming students on LRAP they would still have the ability to pay their obligations. This is a non-story.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:38 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by Navelgazer at 10:38 AM on August 12, 2013
This practice will likely extend into a system where elite students who plan to go into the private sector are recruited and promised loan forgiveness, while tuition skyrockets ever higher for students in the middle and at the bottom of the class.
"Likely"? According to who? That was a piece of completely unfounded speculation.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:40 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Likely"? According to who? That was a piece of completely unfounded speculation.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:40 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is only the beginning. This practice will likely extend into a system where elite students who plan to go into the private sector are recruited and promised loan forgiveness, while tuition skyrockets ever higher for students in the middle and at the bottom of the class.
Uh, if you're defaulting on loans, it is real hard to pass character and fitness. You can't move to another state and get barred there if you just deliberately default on your loans.
I also enjoy how in the interest of making this sound shocking and terrible and fraudulent instead of just, you know, working the system to the greatest advantage, the article pretends that GULC has no endowment. "They're using incoming students' loan money to pay outgoing students' obligations!" Well, yeah. That's the cash flow. And if there were zero incoming students on LRAP they would still have the ability to pay their obligations. This is a non-story.
Exactly. Just ignores the fact that money is fungible.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:45 AM on August 12, 2013
Uh, if you're defaulting on loans, it is real hard to pass character and fitness. You can't move to another state and get barred there if you just deliberately default on your loans.
I also enjoy how in the interest of making this sound shocking and terrible and fraudulent instead of just, you know, working the system to the greatest advantage, the article pretends that GULC has no endowment. "They're using incoming students' loan money to pay outgoing students' obligations!" Well, yeah. That's the cash flow. And if there were zero incoming students on LRAP they would still have the ability to pay their obligations. This is a non-story.
Exactly. Just ignores the fact that money is fungible.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:45 AM on August 12, 2013
Fungible fungible, "fungible" Fungible fungible.
posted by maxwelton at 10:51 AM on August 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 10:51 AM on August 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Uh, if you're defaulting on loans, it is real hard to pass character and fitness.
I think the (frankly insane) speculation is that GULC could promise all students that it will make their loan payments upon graduation. This means, of course, that it would have to charge constantly increasing tuition to cover the growing outstanding obligation; current tuition (from loans) would be use to pay current loan payments, which represent past tuition. This would be something like a Ponzi scheme (but not really a Ponzi scheme) and would be completely unsustainable. It's exponential growth; tuition would be up to millions of dollars annually in less than a decade.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:54 AM on August 12, 2013
I think the (frankly insane) speculation is that GULC could promise all students that it will make their loan payments upon graduation. This means, of course, that it would have to charge constantly increasing tuition to cover the growing outstanding obligation; current tuition (from loans) would be use to pay current loan payments, which represent past tuition. This would be something like a Ponzi scheme (but not really a Ponzi scheme) and would be completely unsustainable. It's exponential growth; tuition would be up to millions of dollars annually in less than a decade.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:54 AM on August 12, 2013
There was a guy I knew at GULC my 1L year who used the word "fungible" to an embarrassing degree during our first class together. He was a nice enough guy, but between that first impression and a frankly mortifying episode in a different class the next semester, he ended up transferring.
This thread is like a dark, unintentional inside joke to me.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:00 AM on August 12, 2013
This thread is like a dark, unintentional inside joke to me.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:00 AM on August 12, 2013
but laughter is non-fungible.
(its funny I think I only use the word "fungible" as part of the phrase "money is fungible")
I should go check out the GU basketball chatboards "non-sports related" thread. Maybe this has gotten them off of "Francis says gays are OK. He must be the anti-christ. Is anyone else going to the class of '54 reunion next year"
posted by JPD at 11:03 AM on August 12, 2013
(its funny I think I only use the word "fungible" as part of the phrase "money is fungible")
I should go check out the GU basketball chatboards "non-sports related" thread. Maybe this has gotten them off of "Francis says gays are OK. He must be the anti-christ. Is anyone else going to the class of '54 reunion next year"
posted by JPD at 11:03 AM on August 12, 2013
We have law schools asserting that their free speech rights are being violated by having to disclose bar passage rates. The ABA is a cartel that has already been disclplined by the Department of Justice on at least a couple of occasions from engaging in anti-competitive conduct. There is no conduct that law schools (and universities in general) will not engage in to keep the money rolling in and provide cushy jobs for faculty.
Per research conducted by Brian Tamanaha and Paul Campos, many law schools have done away almost entirely with need based aid, preferring to give scholarship money to people who can raise the median GPA and LSAT scores. What will stop them from extending offers of free (to them) law school to students as applications keep dropping and students' leverage continues to increase?
I agree that at some point, students will wake up and realize that they are being taken. But, up until that time, law schools will do everything can, ethical or not, legal or illegal, to protect their bottom line.
posted by reenum at 11:11 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Per research conducted by Brian Tamanaha and Paul Campos, many law schools have done away almost entirely with need based aid, preferring to give scholarship money to people who can raise the median GPA and LSAT scores. What will stop them from extending offers of free (to them) law school to students as applications keep dropping and students' leverage continues to increase?
I agree that at some point, students will wake up and realize that they are being taken. But, up until that time, law schools will do everything can, ethical or not, legal or illegal, to protect their bottom line.
posted by reenum at 11:11 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Right. "I think the (frankly insane) speculation is that GULC could promise all students that it will make their loan payments upon graduation."
GULC's Loan Repayment Assistance Program doesn't work that way. GULC's LRAP is not guaranteed and does not necessarily make your full payment in a year. And if you qualify for it, then unqualify for it, you have to pay it back. If you work in nonqualifying employment before qualifying employment, you are ineligible. If you work in public interest, but make too much money according to their eligibility requirements, you price yourself out of it. Georgetown's LRAP, however, is one of the better programs out there, as it lasts for the whole 10 year forgiveness period.
About half the law schools in the U.S. offer LRAPs--either funded through the school or the state. Most have pretty stringent income requirements and cap the amounts offered to students to well below their loan balances. (For instance, William and Mary's is capped at $5,000 for three years). Many are only available to a handful of students each year (DePaul, for instance, only awards LRAP to 3-5 graduates each year)
I believe only Harvard and Yale have LRAPs that can be considered truly cushy. Yale's even helps graduates in private practice.
There are lots of significant issues to discuss regarding graduate/law school tuition; the legal job market; the cost of legal services in the U.S.; how impossible it is to pay for law school and then survive on a public interest salary or in private practice if your services are affordable to the middle class. There are lots of problems with law school marketing; with law schools accepting too many students; with people not make clear eyed decisions about law school; with both the legal education market and the legal profession.
But the scourge of LRAPs is definitely a bugaboo.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:15 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
GULC's Loan Repayment Assistance Program doesn't work that way. GULC's LRAP is not guaranteed and does not necessarily make your full payment in a year. And if you qualify for it, then unqualify for it, you have to pay it back. If you work in nonqualifying employment before qualifying employment, you are ineligible. If you work in public interest, but make too much money according to their eligibility requirements, you price yourself out of it. Georgetown's LRAP, however, is one of the better programs out there, as it lasts for the whole 10 year forgiveness period.
About half the law schools in the U.S. offer LRAPs--either funded through the school or the state. Most have pretty stringent income requirements and cap the amounts offered to students to well below their loan balances. (For instance, William and Mary's is capped at $5,000 for three years). Many are only available to a handful of students each year (DePaul, for instance, only awards LRAP to 3-5 graduates each year)
I believe only Harvard and Yale have LRAPs that can be considered truly cushy. Yale's even helps graduates in private practice.
There are lots of significant issues to discuss regarding graduate/law school tuition; the legal job market; the cost of legal services in the U.S.; how impossible it is to pay for law school and then survive on a public interest salary or in private practice if your services are affordable to the middle class. There are lots of problems with law school marketing; with law schools accepting too many students; with people not make clear eyed decisions about law school; with both the legal education market and the legal profession.
But the scourge of LRAPs is definitely a bugaboo.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:15 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Per research conducted by Brian Tamanaha and Paul Campos, many law schools have done away almost entirely with need based aid, preferring to give scholarship money to people who can raise the median GPA and LSAT scores.
I find it really hard to see what the issue is with professional schools not giving need based scholarships if they offer an LRAP.
posted by JPD at 11:19 AM on August 12, 2013
I find it really hard to see what the issue is with professional schools not giving need based scholarships if they offer an LRAP.
posted by JPD at 11:19 AM on August 12, 2013
"Scholarships" are financed by the those who pay tuition in one way or another.
posted by Cranberry at 11:26 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by Cranberry at 11:26 AM on August 12, 2013
Law schools solely worried about the bottom line wouldn't even offer LRAP, the full cost of attendance is already guaranteed by the Federal government anyway, and disbursed at the time due, not at gradation or on a 30yr payment plan. If a student defaults, the school doesn't have to care one bit, they already got paid.
Law schools are hardly blameless, but attacking one of the only mitigating measures they do take with LARP is highly misplaced concern trolling.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:33 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Law schools are hardly blameless, but attacking one of the only mitigating measures they do take with LARP is highly misplaced concern trolling.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:33 AM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I find it really hard to see what the issue is with professional schools not giving need based scholarships if they offer an LRAP.
At most schools, LRAP is so small and/or hard to qualify for as to be completely meaningless in terms of making law school accessible/affordable.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 11:35 AM on August 12, 2013
At most schools, LRAP is so small and/or hard to qualify for as to be completely meaningless in terms of making law school accessible/affordable.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 11:35 AM on August 12, 2013
I find it really hard to see what the issue is with professional schools not giving need based scholarships if they offer an LRAP.
Well, the issue is in the details. Assume we want to make JD's affordable, so that the people who earn them can provide low cost legal services, what do we do?
We can either make them affordable on the front end (need based scholarships) or on the back end (LRAP). If a student gets assistance on the front end, and can't find LRAP-qualifying employment right away, she can still afford to go into public interest later. If she doesn't get assistance on the front end, but can't find LRAP-qualifying employment right away, she's often unable to go into public interest later because the period of non-qualifying employment makes her forever ineligible for assistance.
For instance, a period of unemployment--or employment not requiring your JD--can make you permanently ineligible for Georgetown's LRAP. So you paid the full 80k, assuming you'd go into public interest and get LRAP, but you spend six months unemployed. Or six months unemployed and then take the first job offered, which doesn't happen to require a JD, because you have no money and your loan deferment is up. You're now locked out of LRAP and probably budgeted out of public interest work. Fortunately, you can probably still qualify for federal loan forgiveness, assuming you have the right sort of loan, but you may or may not qualify for IBR, and the balance of your loan that is forgiven will count as income the year it is forgiven on your tax return. Good luck saving for that on a public interest salary, even in IBR!
Add to that the fact that public interest jobs are not easy to get. The pool of money paying the salaries of public interest attorneys is small, so there are fewer jobs to begin with. And starting your own practice is not conducive to providing legal aid or lost cost services to underserved populations--there's office rent; there's malpractice insurance; there's your annual license and your annual CLE costs; there's all sorts of upfront fees associated with litigation that are not waived when the litigant has an attorney, even one who is hired on a sliding scale. And most LRAPs don't assist attorneys in private practice--you have to be working for the government or in a qualifying NPO.
So, LRAPs don't necessarily make law school accessible or affordable, although they probably have a good impact on the number of attorneys able to work in the public interest, in a narrow range of public interest jobs.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:40 AM on August 12, 2013
Well, the issue is in the details. Assume we want to make JD's affordable, so that the people who earn them can provide low cost legal services, what do we do?
We can either make them affordable on the front end (need based scholarships) or on the back end (LRAP). If a student gets assistance on the front end, and can't find LRAP-qualifying employment right away, she can still afford to go into public interest later. If she doesn't get assistance on the front end, but can't find LRAP-qualifying employment right away, she's often unable to go into public interest later because the period of non-qualifying employment makes her forever ineligible for assistance.
For instance, a period of unemployment--or employment not requiring your JD--can make you permanently ineligible for Georgetown's LRAP. So you paid the full 80k, assuming you'd go into public interest and get LRAP, but you spend six months unemployed. Or six months unemployed and then take the first job offered, which doesn't happen to require a JD, because you have no money and your loan deferment is up. You're now locked out of LRAP and probably budgeted out of public interest work. Fortunately, you can probably still qualify for federal loan forgiveness, assuming you have the right sort of loan, but you may or may not qualify for IBR, and the balance of your loan that is forgiven will count as income the year it is forgiven on your tax return. Good luck saving for that on a public interest salary, even in IBR!
Add to that the fact that public interest jobs are not easy to get. The pool of money paying the salaries of public interest attorneys is small, so there are fewer jobs to begin with. And starting your own practice is not conducive to providing legal aid or lost cost services to underserved populations--there's office rent; there's malpractice insurance; there's your annual license and your annual CLE costs; there's all sorts of upfront fees associated with litigation that are not waived when the litigant has an attorney, even one who is hired on a sliding scale. And most LRAPs don't assist attorneys in private practice--you have to be working for the government or in a qualifying NPO.
So, LRAPs don't necessarily make law school accessible or affordable, although they probably have a good impact on the number of attorneys able to work in the public interest, in a narrow range of public interest jobs.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:40 AM on August 12, 2013
I meant to add that my sense is that LRAP exists so that it can be put on brochures and give 0Ls/parents/policy makers the illusion of a safety net.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 11:58 AM on August 12, 2013
posted by the christopher hundreds at 11:58 AM on August 12, 2013
"Scholarships" are financed by the those who pay tuition in one way or another.
Or those who have already paid tuition, or those who never paid tuition but want to give something to their community (or want their name on something).
posted by Etrigan at 12:03 PM on August 12, 2013
Or those who have already paid tuition, or those who never paid tuition but want to give something to their community (or want their name on something).
posted by Etrigan at 12:03 PM on August 12, 2013
I believe only Harvard and Yale have LRAPs that can be considered truly cushy.
I'm pretty sure NYU's is in that club as well. It sure feels cushy.
posted by saladin at 1:24 PM on August 12, 2013
I'm pretty sure NYU's is in that club as well. It sure feels cushy.
posted by saladin at 1:24 PM on August 12, 2013
I'm pretty sure NYU's is in that club as well. It sure feels cushy.
Nope nope nope, not for some of my friends who have been totally shafted by NYU despite qualifying for the program.
posted by prefpara at 1:54 PM on August 12, 2013
Nope nope nope, not for some of my friends who have been totally shafted by NYU despite qualifying for the program.
posted by prefpara at 1:54 PM on August 12, 2013
and the balance of your loan that is forgiven will count as income the year it is forgiven on your tax return.
Luckily, the IRS has ruled [.pdf] that discharges under the Public Service Forgiveness are not taxable under an exclusion. Regular IBR forgiveness after 20 or 25 years is taxable.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:18 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
Luckily, the IRS has ruled [.pdf] that discharges under the Public Service Forgiveness are not taxable under an exclusion. Regular IBR forgiveness after 20 or 25 years is taxable.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:18 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm fine with real financial aid for real students, like this scheme.
We already face a real crisis in federally backed financial aid that for-profit degree mills hoover up most the federally backed financial aid and their their students cannot pay back the loans, well because they never received any real education from the degree mill obviously.
We've another related story that law school graduates cannot land jobs too, but surely most Georgetown Law students find legal work and pay off their loans.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:06 PM on August 12, 2013
We already face a real crisis in federally backed financial aid that for-profit degree mills hoover up most the federally backed financial aid and their their students cannot pay back the loans, well because they never received any real education from the degree mill obviously.
We've another related story that law school graduates cannot land jobs too, but surely most Georgetown Law students find legal work and pay off their loans.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:06 PM on August 12, 2013
surely most Georgetown Law students find legal work and pay off their loans. anecdotally, chatting with my classmates, this is not true.
posted by crush-onastick at 3:32 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by crush-onastick at 3:32 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]
I agree with crush-onastick. I've heard reports that several Tier 1 schools have to offer 10% to 20% of graduates a phony law school job until at least the 9 month employment reporting is sent in.
posted by reenum at 6:02 PM on August 12, 2013
posted by reenum at 6:02 PM on August 12, 2013
Well, the issue is in the details. Assume we want to make JD's affordable, so that the people who earn them can provide low cost legal services, what do we do?
Great job, crush-onastick, hitting the nail on the head of the real policy question here. Of course I think there's a third answer, which is reducing the cost of education in the first place.
The point that this article gets right is that, by using student loans as a method of subsidizing education, you end up subsidizing primarily what the institutions value, secondarily what the students value, and only a teeny bit what society values. Why should the government pay Georgetown tens of thousands of dollars for your legal education (which ends up going to pay for a rankings arms race, mostly) when you could get a perfectly good legal education for a fraction of the cost?
The real travesty here is that governments have steadily been defunding public education while pouring more money into guaranteed student loans which are a wonderful way of enriching university administrators while keeping students in debt for decades.
posted by goingonit at 8:12 PM on August 12, 2013
Great job, crush-onastick, hitting the nail on the head of the real policy question here. Of course I think there's a third answer, which is reducing the cost of education in the first place.
The point that this article gets right is that, by using student loans as a method of subsidizing education, you end up subsidizing primarily what the institutions value, secondarily what the students value, and only a teeny bit what society values. Why should the government pay Georgetown tens of thousands of dollars for your legal education (which ends up going to pay for a rankings arms race, mostly) when you could get a perfectly good legal education for a fraction of the cost?
The real travesty here is that governments have steadily been defunding public education while pouring more money into guaranteed student loans which are a wonderful way of enriching university administrators while keeping students in debt for decades.
posted by goingonit at 8:12 PM on August 12, 2013
The thing about need-based aid is that if you get into a really really good law school and you're the right sort of person and you do really well and you go on to a $150k+/year big firm job right out of school? You don't need to be the person who doesn't have a student loan payment afterwards. You've got the income to pay for it. The person who needs the help is the person who can't pay afterwards, not the person who can't pay before--probably not the richest of the lot, but certainly a lot of the middle-class types who happen to either have more modest aspirations or more modest grades. So they're shifting to putting the aid onto the back end. This part makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, because of the qualification requirements, a lot of the people who need the help most will get no help at all, because they're the ones who are not at Georgetown and will not end up practicing law at all, or barely.
posted by Sequence at 8:16 PM on August 12, 2013
Unfortunately, because of the qualification requirements, a lot of the people who need the help most will get no help at all, because they're the ones who are not at Georgetown and will not end up practicing law at all, or barely.
posted by Sequence at 8:16 PM on August 12, 2013
« Older Under the Sea | These are the riches of the poor Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:25 AM on August 12, 2013