<p>I also missed the part where Massachusetts has a state law school.</p>
<p>Oh, wait, they don't.</p>
<p>I also missed the part where state law schools have room for everyone who wants to practice law. Wait - most students go to private schools.</p>
<p>As for lawyers - what do Supreme Court justices, ACLU workers, public defenders, environmental lobbyists, DAs, immigrant advocates, and others have in common?</p>
<p>Do you want some lawyer jokes?</p>
<p>So, how much debt did you say you were incurring at your bargain-priced law school? More than tuition? I don't see why US taxpayers, many of whom will never have the opportunities and/or money that you will, should give you a hand-out for your living expenses because you would rather go to school than work.</p>
<p>I'm always intrigued by these arguments over the "rich" getting something the rest of us don't have, especially the idea that the rich don't need to take out loans, so why should anyone else?</p>
<p>I think this merges two ideas inapproapriately. Suppose everyone was required to borrow the full cost of thier undergrad and graduate education and living costs, whether their parents were willing or able to pay, or not. Everyone would then be shocked and appalled over the cost of college and professional schools, and how it has increased over the last 25 years.</p>
<p>This is the real problem.</p>
<p>And in my thought experiment, the "rich" would still inherit money to pay off the loans when the parents kicked off, and this would be fair or unfair depending upon how you see inheritance taxes...</p>
<p>The real issues are college costs, and lifestyle choices (or the lack thereof, as Aries has cited in her state of MA). It's not rich parents, merit aid, or second home mortgage deductiblity.</p>
<p>I'll bet ariesathena is in favor of repealing the estate tax.</p>
<p>I sort of doubt it...Aries?</p>
<p>Hey y'all....</p>
<p>No, I think just straight-up tuition for a few reasons, mainly, that living expenses are going to be paid whether you are in school, working, or living off a trust fund. I would limit tuition deductions to students who pay their own way through school - or part of their own way. This would include undergraduates - and is especially important, considering that loan repayment can realistically eat up a good 15% of post-tax salary for young people. </p>
<p>I do agree that if everyone in this country realized how much higher education costs, there would be huge issues. Realistically, unless there is a massive, massive tax increase, we can't get everyone in state schools. (I wish that had been a viable option for me, but it wasn't - even the semi-discounted UConn for out-of-state New Englanders would have cost me about $90,000 over three years.) </p>
<p>My concern (believe it or not) - which, the longer I'm in law school, the more worried I am - is about how those who are educated, especially at the elite schools, are ultimately the ones who are going to be running the country. Anyone who saw the Harriet Miers debacle cannot think that a state law school (or discounted one, or a solid regional one, or anything but an Ivy) gets you as far as Harvard. The people that I go to school with want to be politicians, lobbyists, (sure, a few general lawyer-types), policy makers, and judges. Who are they? The same rationale that applies to affirmative action - that the people you admit into your school are the people who are going to be in charge of things 20 years down the road - applies to ensuring that those people can afford the education. </p>
<p>As I said, I go to a cheap law school - one of the least expensive private ones. In fact, it's roughly equivalent to in-state tuition at one of the state law schools in the area I live in now. I'm still going to have six figures of debt. 35% (and growing) of law school grads are in the same situation. $100,000 over ten years at about 5% interest is about $11,000 annually. We want an educated work force. We want public interest lawyers - and I can tell you that some of the reason that we all try so hard for private practice, depsite a desire to do other things, is to pay down these debts. </p>
<p>I would LOVE to hear input from someone in my generation - don't take this personally, guys, because I really do love all of you :) - but your generation hasn't been the greatest. Social security? We're paying in but not getting anything out. You guys are getting much more out than you ever put in for - no one really thinks that 2-6% really is for retirement - it was designed only to ensure that really old people wouldn't go broke - and assumed that there wouldn't be many people who would live more than a year or two past retirement. Anyway.... Disappearing pensions and underfunded pension plans - yep, that'll be our bill. Enron! Skyrocketing housing costs! Skyrocketing tuition! That isn't my generation's doing, but we're the ones who are going to have to pay for it. Considering that it's nearly impossible to buy a house in many parts of the country, that we're going to have to pay your retirement and our retirement, and foreign auto manufacturers are eating Detroit for lunch because they can't put out a decent car, so we'll have to pay for them - oh, and airlines are going bankrupt because they have a business model that your standard third grader would find fault with - yeah, can't you guys give us a break when we start off? Please?</p>
<p>Enron may be your bill at some point, indirectly, but it is ours right now.
Lots of people had a lot of their retirement money (and college tuition money)unknowingly invested in Enron stock via their mutual funds. You guys didn't have any; you don't have any money invested in anything yet, besides your education.</p>
<p>We'll see when/ if housing comes tumbling down, who bears that burden. I'm hoping it's you guys, (if I have to choose one group or the other) but I'm very worried it will be me. Speaking as a recent ourchaser of a house in the Northeast. But if all would-be boomer retirees try to sell at about the same time, you may not have it so bad, and they may not have it so good after all.</p>
<p>Aries-good thing you're in law school, since you'd never make it as an economist.</p>
<p>Every demographic analysis of higher ed I've read indicates that since the HS population is due to peak in three years, our colleges and universities will have excess capacity once all these dorms that are now under construction come on-line. When the supply increases, the price usually falls..... which we're already beginning to see at lower tier private U's who have to discount their sticker price significantly via merit aid in order to get kids to fill the seats. Pity the taxpayers of states where the public U's have been on an orgy of capital expansion projects once the supply of 18 year old drops in a few years.</p>
<p>As far as law school..... I believe that there has been an over-supply of lawyers since the tech bust in Spring 2001. In many cities, lawyers now take jobs which once only required a paralegal certificate. Some lawyers patch together a string of contract legal gigs where they subcontract to big firms handling complicated litigation.... but the job goes away when the filings are done, and the firms know that given the over-supply, they can find and train new temp lawyers for the next big case. You would have trouble convincing any labor economist that the taxpayers should help reduce the cost of a legal education, since by doing so, you'll just expand the current over-supply.</p>
<p>Sadly, the Harriet Miers case proves nothing about the value of a public law school education. It does suggest that a mediocre candidate for a highly desireable job, in a field with outstanding candidates, sometimes won't get the job, even where party politics and the personal endorsement of the leader of the free world are at play. I don't like Justice Alito's politics-- but you would be hard-pressed to match his intellect and experience with any aspect of Ms. Miers background.</p>
<p>Aries ~ I hope it works out for you. As a dad of high-school age kids, I deny responsibility for the SS mess...this was set in motion 22 years before I was born, and has been getting less sustainable every year. I pay into it twice (I'm self-employed) and I do not think I will ever collect a dime. Chances are, your generation will start a new retirement system, and you'll be fine. I'll probably be paying into that one too!</p>
<p>
[quote]
but your generation hasn't been the greatest. Social security? We're paying in but not getting anything out. You guys are getting much more out than you ever put in for
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, not only have I not taken out a dime of social security benefits, nor will I be able to for another 23 years, I contribute 15.3% of my income into the plan (I'm self employed but wage earners put in 7.65% and their employers do as well). Everyone knows that the numbers don't work, and that has been known for a long time, but trust me, our generation is not getting rich off of social security.</p>
<p>The primary reason for encouraging my kids to not go into a lot of debt for college is because if their lives go anything like mine, they will be expected to pay into social security, fund their own retirement, and pay for their kids college tuition because in making enough money to fund those items, we are in the eyes of the government - "wealthy", thus no financial aid. We also have to help my father in retirement because he squandered every penny he ever made and is now attempting to live on social security - and trust me, you can't. My kids won't be having to support us in retirement. That is our gift to them. Frankly, I am thankful that we are able to pay for all of those things, but in order to do them my kids have to go to state schools, work while attending, and we have old cars and a modest home. It's fine. We're not millionaires, but we have a lot to be thankful for.</p>
<p>Aries, I keep trying to figure out what type of plan that you are proposing - a deduction for tuition, student loan interest, or something else. Tuition deductions would be a waste - a student would probably have a very small tax liability in the first place so no real tax benefit would be achieved. If it is student loan interest deduction, then it doesn't seem like it would be a life changing amount. Say $10,000 per year in interest, at the top rate of 35%, then you would save $3,500 in tax. That also assumes the top rate. If you were at the lower range, say the 15% bracket, we're only talking about a $1,500 savings. Nice, but I doubt that it will make or break anyone. I don't think that there are any easy/quick fixes. Debt of any kind is a real burden. It is up to each individual to determine how much they are comfortable with.</p>
<p>What the beautiful Aries speaks of is not an anomoly. Most Gen Xers are barely making out a living, and if they are, we are horribly in debt. Numerous people my age have to have two incomes just to be able to afford a shi**y apartment much less buy a house. The ones who don't have two incomes, or us single people, have to periodically move back home, or get some assistance from the folks. Anyone who seemingly does do it "by themselves" either gets money from their parents and says nothing about it, or sells weed on the side. And this is just what I see in Cleveland. This is the downside of globalization, the fact that education and housing prices increase, while wages and standards of living decrease. The median price of a house in America is around $150,000! That would take a $50,000 salary to barely even qualify for that type of mortgage, not discounting the fact that debt that people carry is counted in the mortgage formula. So the $65,000 lawyer salary is shot down by the $1,200 a month student loan payment. So you now have professionals back in $800 a month crappy apartments. I must have missed something, because this is starting to look like a train wreck. Granted there are consumer goods pushed upon people that were not had in the past. (cell phones, plasma TVs) But with gas prices through the roof, home heating prices ever skyrocketing, and taxes out the wazoo, excessive debt just might be reality for most Gen Xers.</p>
<p>consumer goods * pushed upon people*?</p>
<p>whaddartheydoin? shoving them at you and jumping in your car?</p>
<p>I know lots of recently graduated students who are saving for , or who just bought a house. It just depends what your priorities are.
Do you want to live in one of the most expensive yet beautiful areas inthe country and pay towards a mortgage, or do you want to whine with the rest of the losers who were under the mistaken impression that a college degree was a ticket to the "good life", and are now flamboozeled, that they have to work for it, just like everyone else.?</p>
<p>The average business grad from a Big 10 school makes around $50,000 first year. If you budget a bit and don't lease that new BMW right away you can live OK on that for a 22 year old. Everything takes time in the real world and nobody hands you stuff like mommy and daddy did.</p>
<p>I feel the need to put my two cents in on this one. The argument was just made that Generation Xers such as myself (I consider this people between the ages of about 27 and 35 or so to fall in this group...not sure what the age range truly is) are barely floating above water. I have made this argument several times that this is one of the benefits of opting for scholarship money rather than prestige. I had a full scholarship to a state school and graduated debt free. Then I pursued two further degrees through assistantships so also turned out debt free. I got a full time job and live comfortably and bought my own home at 26. And guess what? I'm a public school teacher in the south so believe me I'm not rolling in dough. My salary doesn't crack 50K. You can argue that it's cheaper to live here and yes, it is cheaper to live here than in the northeast or California, but our median home prices in my area are still well over $100,000. Oh and for the record, I don't get money from my parents or sell weed on the side. </p>
<p>The difference is that I didn't start out in debt. Neither did most of my friends who also attended public institutions. We are all employed and most all of my friends own either homes or condos. (one in DC which is certainly not a cheap area) I also drive a car that is nine years old and runs great so I see no need to invest in something flashier that will eat into my income. There are choices to be made for everyone. The choice to me was clear. I knew I would not be in a lucrative field when I graduated so amassing a huge amount of debt wasn't worth it to me. I suppose my point is that not everyone in my age bracket is looking to get their head above water. A lot of us that accepted those merit scholarships to state schools are doing just fine.</p>
<p>joev:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone who seemingly does do it "by themselves" either gets money from their parents and says nothing about it, or sells weed on the side.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am very offended by this statement. I have lived on my own as an undergraduate and a graduate student with absolutely NO monetary help from my parents. I paid all of my bills on time by working while going to school. Yes, I understand is abnormal, but is very possible if you put your mind to it. I'm doing slightly better now that I'm living with my fiance who works full-time, but would still be doing alright on my own.</p>
<p>As for my debt...it is minimal...a few grand on my credit card and about 12 grand in student loans...</p>
<p>As for the debate about tax cuts and such...I can't give my 2 cents because frankly I'm horrible at economics and haven't read the current laws in detail myself. I'm not a typical 'Gen Y'er, but can speak for a number of my peers in that I'm happy with what I have and glad that I even had the opportunity to become educated (unlike in many 3rd world countries)!</p>
<p>
Very sensible, Teach! This is also how I view the problem:</p>
<p>-- if you want to pursue a less lucrative field, then be very careful about assuming debt of any kind, including student loans.</p>
<p>-- if it's important to you to attend the most selective (usually expensive) school you get into, then be careful about the amount of debt, limiting it to a reasonable amount of student loans. If you are pursuing a graduate degree in the sciences, there are usually TA positions available, so you may not need as much FA in grad school.</p>
<p>-- Many companies have some kind of tuition reimbursement, particularly those in high tech or engineering.</p>
<p>-- If you want to pursue professional education (Medical or Law school) then you are probably going to have to take on significant debt, which will limit where you practice afterward.</p>
<p>-- Alternatively, for medicine, you can look at state medical schools, the military or combined MD/PhD programs.</p>
<p>It's still your choice, but it should be a well-considered choice.</p>
<p>Finally, to all my Gen-X friends, those of my generation didn't always have it easy. Many of us were poor for many years while we pursued our educations (without help from parents) and worked hard to buy a house and gain some financial security. I don't know too many people who graduated with a B.A. or B.S. and lived in the lap of luxury -- most people took years of living carefully to afford our current lifestyles.</p>
<p>Congrats Teach on having a level head and good priorities. I work with a few Gen X'ers too and they all own a house or condo despite being in the expensive Seattle market. They all are state school grads without much debt and got into a good business where hard work brings direct $$$ results.</p>
<p>Teach2005. Good job! You have done well for yourself. I hope my own kids can follow your example.</p>