| Balkinization   |
|
Balkinization
|
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Quickly Exploding Law Graduate Debt Disaster
Brian Tamanaha
The average indebtedness figures for 2011 law graduates are stunning. Last year, 4 law schools had graduates with average debt exceeding $135,000. This year 17 law schools are above $135,000. Last year the highest average debt among graduates was $145,621 (Cal. Western); this year the highest average debt is $165,178 (John Marshall). Below are the 20 schools with the highest average law school debt among graduates (these figures do not include undergraduate debt).
Comments:
Post secondary education has become a small but not insignificant source of systematic credit growth. In order for the the economic and thus political system to operate the US must have credit expanding approximately $2 trillion a year.
After the 08 crisis credit demand and supply collapsed, except for governments. In the case of government it stepped up to the plate to borrow and lenders were eager to lend at super low rates. This still applies as of the last quarter of 11 the Treasury was still responsible for 70% of all non financial credit. So back to education loans. Because they often have implicit government guarantees, like the GSE's, the supply of credit for education loans has continued to expand. So in a way colleges and universities, public and private have been in a bubble akin to the housing bubble. The benefits to the institutions are irresistible and so there is no way they will try to reign in costs and thus tuiton. Not as long as students are willing and able to borrow.
Here is the link to the non-paywall listing: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/grad-debt-rankings
I question the John Marshall listing though--it's a bigger increase from last year than I would have expected, and I don't believe that only 50% of its graduates have loans. Even if they were giving generous scholarships to applicants with an above-median LSAT, you'd think that more students would be taking on some debt for living expenses. Cal Western and TJ seem right, though. Also, IBR (even without public service) will lessen the immediate repayment burden for most students, but at significant cost to the taxpayer.
When the government subsidizes demand and supply remains the same, costs will rise as a matter of course.
If you want lower tuitions costs, drop the subsidies significantly. Of course, is will me less compensation and more classroom work for professors.
Thank you for this post, Brian.
Do you have any thoughts as to why students have kept flocking to these schools even though there are almost always less expensive alternatives that would require students to assume less debt?
CBR,
You are right that the 50% in debt for JM is odd and might be an error. Milan, I can only think of one answer to your question. These students were bent on going to law school no matter what, and these schools were the best ones they got into in the cities they hoped to work in. They did not take a close look at the economics of the situation, and law schools have been posting misleading employment numbers. Keep in mind that 2011 graduates entered law school in 2008, well before the drumbeat of bad publicity about law schools. Prospective students today will be better informed about the financial risks. But I suspect they will continue to enroll no matter how poor the odds of success. And now law schools are using IBR to tell students they won't have to pay back the scary loan numbers in the end if their high-risk gamble does not pay off. Brian
Milan, my hypothesis is that current loan policies make students largely non-price-sensitive (but still highly prestige sensitive), so that they are willing to take on more debt to go to a slightly higher ranked school (even when they have to move to do it--while many stay local, many do not--and the Cal Westerns/TJs/Florida Coastal type schools do get lots of non-local students). As others have convincingly shown, this is rarely a wise decision.
I've argued that the prestige hierarchy will change dramatically if (when?) loan limits are put into place: http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2012/02/after-the-student-loan-arms-race-the-disruption-of-hierarchy.html
While not focusing on law schools, today's Boston Sunday Globe Ideas Section, on page 1, features "Why is college so expensive? A new study points to a disconcerting culprit: financial aid" by Paul Kix. Reference is made to the Bennett Hypothesis, named after William Bennett who had served as Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration.
So back to education loans. Because they often have implicit government guarantees, like the GSE's, the supply of credit for education loans has continued to expand. So in a way colleges and universities, public and private have been in a bubble akin to the housing bubble. The benefits to the institutions are irresistible and so there is no way they will try to reign in costs and thus tuiton. Not as long as students are willing and able to borrow.
Cuurent law school loans are overwhelmingly not just gurenteed by the federal government but actually provisioned directly by the department of education under the Stafford and PLUS Grad loan programs. It is a lose-lose situation. The students are saddled with crushing debt burdens and the federal government is left owning debt with high non-payment rates much of which will have to be written off altogether in 20 years under IBR. The only people who come out ahead are those that work for these law schools.
Brief comments:
I agree with the analysis - with these additional points. 1. Even if students could pay their loans by obtaining high-paying jobs, the rising expense of legal education could weaken the provision of services to indigent and less fortunate clients (and other vital settings with lower salaries). 2. Even if students could pay their loans by obtaining high-paying jobs, the enormous costs of legal education would still have differential effects for students whose families have relatively less wealth (not just income). Poor students often leave law school with demands for assistance from friends and families. Higher salaries do not always translate into more personal gain.
Ancillary but inevitable damage: that debt won't be paid off working public interest law. Corporate law is more like it.
So even those grads who wanted to do some good in the world, can't afford to.
The only one of those law schools anyone has any business borrowing money to attend is Northwestern.
Brian -- Thanks for your post on such an important conversation. I posted some thoughts over at the Literary Table suggesting some solutions -- like Law School internalizing debt of unemployed students and broader reporting windows. http://literarytable.com/2012/03/26/law-school-debt-a-frolic-of-our-own-or-a-leviathan-that-can-be-tamed/
Sue, sue, sue! Let's foment a mutiny on the pirate ship! A feeding frenzy of cannibalistic sharks!
It's high time the law schools got a good hard taste of what the rest of us have suffered at the hands of the rapacious ambulance-chasing filth they excrete. There is nothing so heartwarming as seeing lawyer scum in misery.
My fondest wish is to make it onto a jury for a class action lawsuit against the legal establishment. I'd lie through my teeth about my lack of bias, then lead a runaway jury to a RICO award that would bankrupt three quarters of the law schools in the country and annihilate the endowments of the rest.
horrifying that my alma mater leads the country in turning out debt slaves. I got out in the 80's owing $9300.
Bart's right that subsidies just drive up costs.
I suspect my solution would be different than his, but here goes-- I think we should eliminate all subsidies from PRIVATE schools and make PUBLIC schools free (and use the money saved by not subsidizing private schools to build more of them). This would force private schools to cut costs substantially, but it would also force textbook printers, producers of educational materials, computer services that sell to the educational market, etc., to price closer to marginal cost as well. And at the same time, we'd get a lot more bang for our buck by funding public education.
Student loans debt now totals over $1 trillion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577295930047604846.html?mod=googlenews_wsj It is reportedly growing at $40 billion a month. Of the loans that are now in the repayment period as much as 27% is now 30 days past due, or more of course. http://www.fitchratings.com/web/en/dynamic/articles/U.S.-Student-Loan-ABS-Resistant-to-Default-Rates.jsp?cm_sp=homepage-_-FitchWire-_-U.S.%20Student%20Loan%20ABS%20Resistant%20to%20Default%20Rates Not to worry there of course, for the lenders, the government has their back. So students will be long term debt slaves, or deadbeats, and taxpayers will bail out the lenders. I hope this all sounds familiar. Of course I am not talking about macro economic issues, not educational ones per say. But all the forces which encouraged the housing bubble are on board with this education bubble. Remember we are talking $40 billion a month into post secondary schools that may not otherwise be going there. Thus a bubble has been created. This will end badly.
What will happen when most new JDs have so much student loan debt that they will not be able to pass character and fitness reviews? What will happen when the act of financing law school disqualifies law school graduates from legal practice?
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/character-fitness-fail-for-graduate-with-no-plan-to-pay-off-his-debts/
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Post a Comment
Bayan porno izleme sitesi. Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin. Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle. Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift. harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |