<p>The law school scam is the biggest scam of all. But at least from Stanford, she has a reasonable chance of landing a good job. Many law students graduate with non-dischargeable debts approaching or exceeding $200,000 and will never get a job requiring passage of the bar exam.</p>
<p>I’m under no illusion that my family’s decision to be full payers at a pretty expensive place contains elements of luxury consumption. But if I choose to spend on that instead of cars, clothes, or a bigger house, why should anyone else care?</p>
<p>I don’t really look at law school as a scam. Anyone who is considering spending that kind of money for anything should do research on what they are buying. The facts and figures are all out there. I know plenty of attorneys making a danged good living after graduating from local law schools that are not on any top anything list… That’s what they wanted to do and be and they are practising. To go to law school, thinking that it means easy money is a folly these days, but any college graduate should be able to figure this out. It’s not like it’s some secret sequestered some where.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because after all…it worked so well in the housing market. The push to buy as much as you can by taking out the largest loan amount possible…because after all the only thing that can possibly happen is things (housing value, degree value) will appreciate…because past performance is obviously a guarantee of future performance…so yes,yes,yes…get on that train before it passes you by. I’d think that a group of highly intelligent individuals (parents and (perform genuflection) Ivy quality kids) would be able to figure this out the algorithm here.</p>
<p>Really, if it’s just another check one writes and it doesn’t hurt, by all means do it! It is not only right for that type of family, it is almost a moral imperative because full pays (including those willing and grateful heavy loan takers) are needed to subsidize scholarship/grant students and are a vital part of the engine that drives this ride to crazy.</p>
<p>Law school isn’t a “scam” so much as it is a business model that broke beyond repair during the financial crisis. Pre-2007, it made economic sense to borrow – even up to the $200,000 range – to have access to Biglaw jobs where first-year associates earned $165,000. But clients aren’t willing to pay for junior lawyers like they used to, and that has rippled through hiring and salaries but not yet to tuition (which, in case you hadn’t noticed, is very sticky downward). </p>
<p>I fully expect about 20 law schools to either close in the next ten years or rebrand themselves as low-cost providers of education for would-be lawyers who want to serve local markets and underserved populations. There’s a niche there that some second-tier schools could serve while still generating net revenues for their overall coffers.</p>
<p>The problem is, almost all law schools, except for a few state schools, are outrageously expensive and arguably only the tier 14 are successful in placing kids in well paying jobs to pay off those outrageous loans. So lots of kids are taking out lots of loans they will never be able to afford to pay back</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, there may also be regional biases. In California, state schools (both UCs and CSUs) are generally considered decent schools, but there appears (on these forums at least) to be a strong anti-state-school bias in the New England states, New York, and New Jersey (the “anywhere but Rutgers” phenomenon – if Rutgers is that despised, the other state schools in New Jersey must be even more despised).</p>
<p>$100,000 per year is upper income in the US, though given the way people around here talk about “middle class but won’t get any financial aid”, many may see it as “low income”.</p>
<p>^Agree. The longer I am on this site the more convinced I am that the geographic differences and perceptions are behind a lot of disagreements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is wildly irresponsible of undergrad institutions to package loans as financial aid, for kids coming out of high school who do not even understand the meaning of due dilligence</p>
<p>As for law school hopefuls? If someone with a college education cannot do their due dilligence and takes out excessive debt for that? I hold them responsible for their own idiocy.</p>
<p>The difference is between a green 17 or 18 year old and a college graduate. Significant, imho.</p>
<p>this is a midwestern sensibilities article. plan ol’ common sense to us out here in the hinterlands…</p>
<p>Sometimes it’s worth it, I’m a good example. I only plan on doing undergrad so I wanted my degree from a great school.</p>
<p>If I planned on going to law or med school then I wouldn’t care about going to an elite school for undergrad. I’d go for the merit for undergrad and pay the big bucks for a great grad program.</p>
<p>“I’m under no illusion that my family’s decision to be full payers at a pretty expensive place contains elements of luxury consumption. But if I choose to spend on that instead of cars, clothes, or a bigger house, why should anyone else care?”</p>
<p>I am also at a loss. If a parent goes broke spending everything they have on their kid for whatever, it is their business. OTOH, if a parent gets the kid to borrow 200k to go to a school, then it is definitely immoral. Spending what you have however you please is no one’s business. It is your own pleasure or peril.</p>
<p>Moderator’s note: TOS prohibits links and discussion of blogs.</p>
<p>I find it amusing that a lot of the parents on here posting how its ridiculous for kids to go 100-150K in debt for a college degree are probably the same ones who bought houses with 1% down because they too “deserved” to live the American dream. And make no mistake college education today is the same as the mortgage bubble of years past. The difference being as someone pointed out, is that 18 year old kids don’t often know enough to avoid borrowing more than they should. But when they say there parents buying a McMansion after borrowing 99% and then re-financing where are they supposed to learn fiscal responsability?</p>
<p>
After they pay their bills, I’m sure many of these new employees think it’s low income as well. It is CA after all. Still, I don’t think it’s too bad for three or four years experience. And of course, they can make more if they head up the ladder a bit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this, but I thought we were talking about debt.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>^ if you have not noticed, some posts are clearly aimed at full pay parents sending their kids to expensive schools as being bad.</p>
<p>OH. Yeah, I never pay attention to that idea. I don’t care how parents spend their money. If they want to spend it on a kid’s education? Good for them. If they want to buy a boat. Go for it.</p>
<p>The loans, though? I have to say since joining CC and finding out about this practice, I’ve really been appalled.</p>
<p>I actually think that putting some skin in the game for the lenders might help. For example, past 30K it should be dischargable in bankruptcy court. JMO</p>
<p>I think the word is out, at least among folks bright enough to do reasonably well on the LSAT in the first place.</p>
<p><a href=“Law Schools’ Applications Fall as Costs Rise and Jobs Are Cut - The New York Times”>Law Schools’ Applications Fall as Costs Rise and Jobs Are Cut - The New York Times;
<p>@poetgrl</p>
<p>Personally, I also think the educational institutions need to have some skin in the game, since most of the time students are there for the purpose of becoming employable.</p>
<p>For example - if students do not get a job offer paying at least 20% of the amount they borrowed annually, the institution becomes responsible for a portion of the repayment.</p>
<p>They can funnel some of the aid they’re giving to incoming freshman for recruitment purposes to aiding their unemployable graduates.</p>
<p>Might make them either rethink their tution rates, so that students don’t need to borrow such large sums or work a bit harder to ensure their graduates are employed.</p>