Student debt, a reality check?

Parents Forum
81

<p>you dont have to be a lawyer to influence public policy.
To wit
( Bachelor Degree from in-state public college)

</p>

<p>(Bachelor degree from 3rd tier public college- MA from instate public university)

</p>

<p>(Bachelor degree from instate public college- again not “first tier”)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Just three instances- less than 50 years old- no special connections, bright, but not unusually gifted or lucky but as Anna Devere Smith recently put it
DETERMINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONFIDENCE
Thinking you need a law degree to influence public policy is thinking in the box- try being more creative. :slight_smile:
Lower debt frees you up to accept jobs where you can really make a difference instead of worrying about how you are going to keep up with the interest.</p>

82

<p>Maybe EmeraldKity thinks we have too many pharmacists, too.
Well if you are referring to pharmacists who dont’ dispense medications as written and instead take it upon themselves to decide who should and who shouldn’t get the medication- if anyone- or to pharmacists who run such a sloppy shop that they dump all the insurance and medical information in the dumpster out back for anyone to pilfer, then yes I think we have too many pharmacists like that .
I expect that if students were not applying to pharmacy school, then we would look at a way to entice them.
Although I am a liberal and a progressive, I am also fiscally conservative, and I don’t automatically equate people with money- with low morals or inattention to the working classes.
Some of the most liberal, thoughtful,hardworking and accomplished people I know came from “Money” with a big “M”, and some of the most short sighted, narrow minded, egocentric people have had to " work their way up", but have no interest in being reminded where they came from.</p>

83

<p>Judges. Legal Aid workers. Indigent defense. Prosecutors. JAG. Southern Poverty Law Center. Legal help for domestic violence victims. Magistrates. Supreme Court justices. Most politicians. Capital defense. Whistle-blower groups. Employee protection groups. NARAL staff. Counsel to the President.</p>

<p>Lawyers. Or areas where a law degree is an asset (and almost a de facto requirement, the few exceptions aside). Who do you want those people to be? The scions of the wealthy or the kid next door who has brains and drive, but remembers what it’s like to be middle class or working class? </p>

<p>We have too many lawyers who are in it for the bucks and who work for money. I’m not sure how any rational person thinks that not lowering the cost of the education makes that better. Last time I checked, those with extraordinary debt are forced to follow the money. We have enough Brooks Brothers attorneys - but not enough people who use their law degrees to help the country. </p>

<p>I speak about law because I’m a law student. Medicine is more compelling but harder for me to discuss, but here goes:
Want your doctors to be uniformly the children of the wealthy? Anyone live in a rural or underserved area? Do you think that medical care is going to improve when the best aren’t becoming doctors, but rather only those who can afford it? Not sure how those people who live in small towns will be able to get routine care if the costs of med school keep rising… but it’s a profession and liberals don’t like the idea of helping those people out, right? </p>

<p>I also missed the part where lowering the cost of law school increases the number of people who go. That’s complete b.s. Take a look at lsac.org, then go to the “Data” section in the left-hand column. You can find out how many students take the LSAT in a given year, then find out how many apply to law schools and end up matriculating. Got some news for you: even though the cost has skyrocketed in recent years, you still have the same number of law students! There are more people who want to go to law school than there are spaces in the classroom. Law schools aren’t going to expand from 200 students to 500 because there’s more demand - they just reject 80% of the people who apply. </p>

<p>Kluge hit the nail on the head: the cost of education is effectually another bar to admission into those fields. I worry because those fields are the ones that really dominate our society. Sit in on a law school classroom. Consider who has made the law; consider who it affects; consider who can change it. Consider who the students are in the class, who will be the professors, scholars, judges, and ALA members in 30 years. </p>

<p>“First, let’s kill all the lawyers.” ~Shakespeare, on how to overthrow society. Not to make it better, but to overthrow it.</p>

84

<p>Wait just a minute…while I realize pharmacists are not the issue here, I must object to the defamation of my profession. How many pharmacists do you know who dispense wrong prescriptions, refuse to give random people their medicines and dump insurance and medical records in a dumpster?! Pharmacy, perennially one of America’s most trusted professions, is very well regulated and anyone who behaves as you suggest won’t be practicing very long.</p>

<p>BTW, I agree that sky-high tuitions are limiting the types of students who may enter professional school. By paying full COA, we are subsidizing various groups who bring “diversity” to undergraduate school and making it accessible to all; therefore, I don’t think it is such a great leap to make professional schools more accessible to all via tax breaks during loan repayment or other means. If undergraduate education should be available to all who have the talent and desire, so should professional school. When looking for a doctor or lawyer (or pharmacist?), don’t we all look for someone who is not only talented, but someone who we can connect with? Professions should not be bastions of the wealthy.</p>

85

<p>hey I didn’ t bring up the pharmacists- but they have been in the news lately
*Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.</p>

<p>The trend has opened a new front in the nation’s battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman’s right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized – or force them to carry out their duties.*
or this
A Channel 9 investigation has turned into a federal issue. Your personal drug prescription information could end up tossed into a dumpster, for everyone to see. As a result of what we uncovered here in Orlando, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson wants lawmakers in Washington to pass a brand new law that would protect confidential medical information for millions of Americans.
“It’s time to draw a line and say, no more Mr. Drug Store, you can’t cross that line,” says Sen. Nelson.
Walgreen’s slogan flying high over corporate headquarters is “The Pharmacy America Trusts.” “That trust has been broken,” says Sen. Nelson.
Trust broken time and time again, uncovered during our three-month investigation. Hundreds of confidential prescription labels and dozens of pill bottles carelessly tossed out in dumpsters at a half dozen different Walgreens stores in the Orlando area.
We also uncovered the same problems at Eckerd. At the state’s number one drug store chain, we found confidential prescription information with names, addresses and phone numbers carelessly tossed out with the trash.
To show just how easy it is for addicts to turn your label into drugs, we phoned in someone else’s prescriptions, but stopped short of taking it.
Again I am just responding to someone else questioning me about pharmacists, but similar instances are where I was coming from</p>

<p>Now this sounds like you don’t think that a doctor who is coming from a family of doctors can treat patients who don’t look like her.
can a teacher teach students who don’t look like him?
can a Public defender defend her clients if she has never been in jail a day in her life?
can a builder, construct a nicer house than he lives in?
I don’t expect the people I work with or hire to have identical backgrounds, I expect them to do their job.
I might have wanted to be an attorney, but I wasn’t given the opportunity to take the classes I would have needed to even attend any college because I wasn’t on that “track”.
I think there are more gross inequities in our educational system besides that medical and law school is expensive.</p>

86

<p>Once again, Ariesathena has put it better than I did, or probably could.
Blossom, as a guy who drives a 9 year old minivan in a community where everyone else seems to be behind the wheel of a Porsche or Escalade, I hear what you’re saying. But a lesson I learned years ago as a Little League coach stays with me: Don’t punish the kids for the sins of their parents. Yes, many (probably most) people who go to law school will simply end up as money grubbing servants of the high bidder. But not all of them will. I’d like to preserve the ability of those who are not just in it for the money to make that choice.</p>

<p>Free (or cheap) education is a public benefit. Not just to those who take the classes, but to society as a whole, for a lot of reasons. Attacking that principle - starting with the easiest targets, professional schools - is just another part of the move to restore the barriers which historically have separated the haves from the have-nots (and have-somes). For a while we were getting away from that mindset - but over the past 20 years or so it seems to have gained strength and credibility.</p>

87

<p>Kluge, society can’t pay for everything. Subsidizing law students is low on my list.</p>

<p>Are there more students applying for law school than available spots or the other way around, more spaces than students?</p>

<p>Are there any low cost alternatives?</p>

88

<p>How is this more repugnant than subsidizing minorities or athletes? </p>

<p>Instead of arguing about how we can best get around the problem of exorbitant tuitions and further stratification of society according to wealth-afforded educational opportunities, maybe we should ask WHY do colleges need to constantly raise tuition beyond any reasonable increases seen in other industries. If colleges were utilities or auto manufacturerers, we’d all be checking to see who is getting rich at our expense.</p>

89

<p>I agree that everyone should have the opporutnity. But I argue that everyone does. The reason that most professional schools give only loan aid is that they know that students will be able to pay the loans off. Even if they choose the lower paying position. If a person is willing to drive the old car in the neighborhood, or stick with the smaller house. It’s do-able. We did.</p>

<p>As i said above, my H chose the lowest paying medical field (primary care for kids, go figure) and worked in a low-income clinic (on wheels).
We paid off enomous loans, and managed to bring up two kids while doing so. Now, he’s a teacher. If they choose to go to professional school, I expect it to be financed by loans, as we are not going to be able to help. I expect that this will affect neither their choice of school nor choice of position. So they may never be affluent. So what?</p>

90

<p>Several posters seem to believe that by making law school more affordable, you will allow more poor students to attend law school, which will THEREFORE mean that a higher percentage of law students will “remember where they came from” and THEREFORE these law students will be less money grubbing and more beneficial to society. I have met people in my life from all levels of wealth, and in my experience how nice, money grubbing, arrogant, or beneficent they are is completely independent of the wealth of their parents (that is not to say it is independent of the CHARACTER of their parents, just the wealth).</p>

91

<p>dstark - that’s my point. There are no alternatives that don’t have significant barriers. In California, the lowest cost “accredited” law schools are the UC schools which run $22,000+ tuition cost per year currently, and have seen a huge runup in tuition cost over the past 10 years. It is possible to attend an unaccredited school at significantly less cost (as little as $3000 per year or so) and be eligible to take the bar exam after 4 years (vs. 3 for accredited schools) - but 90% of those who complete those programs fail the bar exam.</p>

<p>I don’t suggest that there’s a need to subsidize all professional school students - there are private schools, for a price, at all levels of education. I just think that there should be a low cost alternative available to a bright, hard-working student that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. </p>

<p>And perhaps more to the point, I see hiking professional school fees as the camel’s nose: if professional school now, why not all post graduate studies? Why not all college education? If you were thinking of mounting an assault on the principle of free (or low cost) public education based on merit rather than financial ability, wouldn’t you start with law schools? Obviously it works for EmeraldKity - and you, too. Sometimes it actually is “the principle of the thing.”</p>

92

<p>Pafather, this is a little off-topic but have you seen this?
<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3twv7ye_I-A[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3twv7ye_I-A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Kluge, you wrote this…"If you were thinking of mounting an assault on the principle of free (or low cost) public education based on merit rather than financial ability, wouldn’t you start with law schools? Obviously it works for EmeraldKity - and you, too. Sometimes it actually is “the principle of the thing.”</p>

<p>That statement is a leap Kluge. I’m not assaulting public education.</p>

93

<p>pigs must be flying- I agree with pafather
I have met people in my life from all levels of wealth, and in my experience how nice, money grubbing, arrogant, or beneficent they are is completely independent of the wealth of their parents (that is not to say it is independent of the CHARACTER of their parents, just the wealth).</p>

<p>If the objective is to make changes in public policy- obviously a law degree isn’t a requirement, and since large debt may restrict choices, it may even be a deterrent.
Making law school cheap isn’t going to hurt those who really do come from money- it will just allow them to keep more of theirs.
It also isn’t going to improve the quality of the attorneys we do have- so what to do?</p>

<p>If you read the accomplishments of the people that I have posted above you might see that all of them attended a public college.
This is an acknowledgement of the worth of public colleges- not an attack.</p>

94

<p>Kluge: professional degrees are attainable right now by all students through loans which they will be capable of paying back afterwards. That is not reliably the case with undergraduate degrees or other, less consistently profitable graduate degrees.</p>

<p>That is the difference, and i think it’s a huge one.</p>

95

<p>dstark - sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you, personally, were intending to undermine the principle of free public education, merely that if a person had such an agenda, starting with professional schools - particularly law school - would be the clever way to begin. Everyone hates lawyers - EmeraldKity apparently is in Dick the Butcher’s camp on that one - and thus “subsidizing law students” is an easy target.<br>
Consider the strategy of the pro-life movement as an example. A frontal attack on abortion was supported by less than half of the country, so a gradual strategy was initiated - outlaw “partial birth” abortion; require parental notification, parental consent, spousal notification, spousal consent, etc. Each step had logical (and emotional) arguments to support it. Step by step the pro-choice advocates were in retreat. The slickest pro-life advocates were sincerely dismayed when those dopes in South Dakota jumped the gun, because their ultimate objective is simply politically unpalatable - for now. </p>

<p>If you want to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub you start with the easy targets - and publicly funded law school education is an easy target. (If I didn’t already get that the responses of the generally pro-education CC posters would have made that crystal clear.)</p>

<p>…and my point, garland, is that we are mandating that anyone who gets a professional degree who isn’t wealthy to begin with will have a strong incentive to use that franchise in a manner designed to generate the most possible income so as to pay that debt off, and in no other way. That your husband did not do so does not disprove that fact. That decision was - as you clearly recognize - unusual. (I know a few doctors.) And the result, as you note, is that it means that your children will be no further along the road towards obtaining a professional degree than your husband was at their age; indeed, they are arguably further behind the 8-ball because the cost of those degrees is higher now than it was back in our day. Which in turn is a ratification of my basic premise: generations past worked towards giving their children more options than they had themselves, not less; why aren’t we doing the same?</p>

96

<p>I’d love to see some data that shows that law schools are skewing more affluent than in the past, and that middle class kids are getting squeezed out because of the price.</p>

<p>I understand that nobody wants debt. I still want someone on the board to explain to me why investing in one’s own earning power is a worse investment than all the other %^&* that people have no problem loading up their credit cards with.</p>

<p>It’s also a bit disengenous to claim that the high cost is forcing all these idealistic law students to go into M&A instead of taking jobs in the public sector. Kids take out huge loans to get an MLS degree, to become high school French teachers, or physical therapists, and none of them have the long term earning potential of a lawyer. Is there a sinister plot to make sure that all our librarians are members of the upper crust???</p>

97

<p>I would also like to see some information that indicates that those who don’t have to take out loans for professional school or those who are not adverse to it are any less capable of doing their jobs than those who came from more humble beginnings.</p>

<p>I just don’t believe that it does society more good for professional school to be heavily subsidized, than it would to take that money and help students graduate high school, let alone acheive a college dgree.
It would benefit those individuals who chose to pursue years of post grad education, but I don’t see the benefit to the whole.
I agree with blossom, what about all those poor post doc students in the sciences , they can earn fellowships, but financially they are never going to make a lot of money nor do they expect to.
If it really was about making a difference- then students would find a way to do that- with or without a prof degree.</p>

98

<p>Law school is expensive – even at below-average law schools. It is not worth the cost for everyone, even for those who could potentially be excellent lawyers, IF ONLY THEY HAD BEEN BORN THE SON OF BILL GATES. However, most of us are not born the son of Bill Gates. Most of us have economic choices to make. For a person who intends to make a life doing legal volunteer work, or working for some cause that has no money available, then law school is ECONOMICALLY a bad idea. So what?!</p>

<p>In my opinion, if someone goes through life thinking it is unfair because he wasn’t provided all the same options as the son of Bill Gates, then he would only end up being the kind of lawyer we already have too many of.</p>

<p>If enough people care about a particular cause, then they can get together and create a scholarship to fund someone who will eventually work for their cause through law school.</p>

<p>If a young person feels gifted and compelled to enter law school, but thinks he cannot afford it, perhaps he should see how much he can really argue convincingly by making other people to pay for his law school.</p>

<p>Some kids have parents who will not qualify for financial aid, but can spare a total of about $100,000 for college. Such kids who are bright can possibly go to an Ivy as an undergrad and graduate with $80,000 in loans, and then THINK about grad school. Others just as bright (and in my opinion WISER) may opt for a tuition scholarship at a lesser school so that they and parents can take out lesser loans for professional school. On the other hand, a very bright but truly poor kid graduates from undergrad with no appreciable debt. </p>

<p>If you do well in law school, you will have career OPTIONS that will enable paying back the LAW SVCHOOL loans in a reasonable time period. Obviously, no matter what education you receive, you can always make career choices that make loan repayment nearly impossible. Consider this BEFORE taking out the loans. If you would only be happy graduating from law school debt-free then you have two choices: find a way to make it happen debt-free , or choose another career.</p>

<p>My son is a college sophomore who intends to begin law school in fall of 2008. We made various choices to minimize the debt load he will have to assume through the competion of law school.</p>

<p>For most people, life’s choices have financial components. Get over it! The great thing about the US is that no one forces you to make any particular career choice.</p>

<p>Lastly, if you cannot afford law school, perhaps you should consider another career. Years ago, a woman called my father (a realtor) and told him, “Jesus told me to call you to buy a house.” My father discussed her finances and then told her, “When Jesus gives you a down payment, call me back.” (I certainly do not give this example as anti-Christian. I think if Jesus wanted her to have a house, he WOULD have given her a down payment.) If someone FEELS called to be a lawyer but cannot get the money together and cannot stomach taking out the loans, then PERHAPS he should consider NOT being a lawyer.</p>

<p>dstark - amazing video. Actually had not seen it. Certainly gets more impressive after several successive impacts of the crossbar!!!</p>

99

<p>So Kluge, you are still saying that anyone can make these choices, but they would be unusual ones, so they shouldn’t be expected to make them.</p>

<p>In other words, someone else should pay their way to professiona school so they don’t have to ever tighten their belts.</p>

<p>What kind of value system is that? why should my kids be more affuen than I was? Why is affluence an end in itself?</p>

<p>Frankly, I’d rather encourage people to go into medicine, law, dentistry, etc , b e cause they intrinsically want to, not for the affluence.</p>

<p>If loans scare off the mercenary, well, great!</p>

100

<br>

<br>

<p>All right, let’s move on to vets. . .just kidding. Vet school/being a vet is something that you do because you really want to do it–it is very difficult to get into vet school, it is expensive, and you won’t make the big bucks like you might if you had been a doctor or lawyer.</p>