![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/jdr/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/jdr/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://minnlawyer.com/jdr/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/jdr/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/jdr/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)
By Kelly Francis
A recent post by Heather Diersen, “Dear Law School: It’s all your fault. Signed, Recent grad,” has (unsurprisingly) set off a firestorm of commentary regarding law school debt, unemployment statistics, and to some degree, personal responsibility.
I agree with Heather that it’s a bit simplistic to blame the law schools. It’s also a bit simplistic to blame the grads themselves or the poor economy. As many have noted, this situation did not occur overnight and is not unique to the legal profession. In many ways, the glut of lawyers and the enormous debt loads resemble the mortgage crisis (yes, the law degree hanging above your head or shoved in the back of your closet is now something akin to a toxic asset). The law schools, the ABA, and the federal government have shown a startling degree of irresponsibility in handing out student loans and law degrees to whoever will sign on the dotted line, regardless of their ability to land a job or eventually make good on the debt. In turn, the students themselves should certainly shoulder their fair share of the blame for failing to read between the lines or see the forest for the trees. Much like the mortgage crisis, however, it’s difficult not to assign blame to the parties that appear to be profiting the most from the drunken free for all, and in the current situation, that’s not the students.
I am always struck by how quickly these dialogues turn bitter, resentful or angry, though my suspicion is that some of this anger has less to do with the immediate question of law school debt, and more to do with the unstated reality behind all the heated arguments. What’s difficult for many of us to fathom is this concept that something like higher education, even with federal student aid, is just not something that all Americans can afford. If this is true, what does that mean for America? What does that mean for capitalism? What does that mean for the future?
It is surprising to note how much hostility is coming not only from those who are struggling with student debt or unemployment, but also from those who appear to be thriving. At least until we consider how those struggles are threatening core ideas about meritocracy and fairness. It is certainly easier to believe that others are unqualified, that they are being unreasonable in their job searches, and that they have somehow overextended themselves beyond typical tuition expenses than it is to believe that cracks are forming in the system. That it is no longer that simple to pull yourself out of a working class existence by enrolling in school and applying yourself to your studies. That you can graduate from a top 20law school with honors and still find yourself unable to make ends meet. Anytime you question long-standing beliefs about God or country like that, you should expect to have some venom thrown your way.
I don’t doubt that I’ll be taken to task for making sweeping generalizations based on one issue that is quite close and personal, but I figured I’d save the full blown theories for another post.
September 21st, 2010 at 9:20 am
Really interesting post, Kelly. I think the comparison to the mortgage meltdown is REALLY apt, especially as there are similar arguments about personal responsibility being made by the victim-blamers. Yes, prospective law students probably should’ve looked a little harder at the employment figures, just like mortgagors should’ve given that adjustable-rate mortgage a little more thought before they signed on the bottom line. But they didn’t, and here we are.
I think that in both cases, the relentless focus on comparative fault for the situation misses the point. The situation is what it is. While we certainly need to figure out how to change the system so that law schools stop spewing out new lawyers without job prospects, I think there also needs to be discussion about how to help all the un- and under-employed lawyers who can’t pay their student loans. “Get a job at Target” isn’t the answer; when you’ve got over $1K/mo in student loan payments, working at Target isn’t going to cut it, if you can even get that job. (unlikely, given how overqualified you are.)
In my opinion allowing discharge of student loans in bankruptcy works on both sides of the problem. The unemployed j.d. who can’t find a job is able to discharge the debt and move on. And student loan lenders would be forced to actually do some underwriting and due dilingence, instead of handing out $100,000 loans to every poor sap who sits for the LSAT, thereby slowing the flood of new j.d.s.
September 21st, 2010 at 10:10 am
I agree that lenders need better underwriting! I took out the max federal loans to pay tuition and took out private loans to help pay my household bills. If I was not granted those loans, I would not have gone to law school and would have probably found a perfectly enjoyable career elsewhere.
September 21st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
In response to Leah:
You do realize that allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy would significantly curtail access to education, especially among low-income and minority students? Maybe that’s a solution — it would certainly address the “problem” of too many law students — but I don’t think it really addresses the main concern of Kelly’s post.
September 21st, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I am currently a student at a “Tier-4″ law school. Honestly, I think the blame lies in the oversaturation of the market (legal) combined with the slumping economy.
In an increasingly litigious society, you’d think that would come hand-in-hand with more job opening for those with a law degree but the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn’t.
I really don’t buy into the notion that the lower the “prestige” (read: ranking) of the school you attend/ed greatly impacts the job you will get. That’s not to say it’s an even playing field by any means, but (barring Ivy League & other top 10-20s) I really don’t see the WHERE one got a law degree matters as much as the USNWR and admissions people lead us to believe.
Again barring the top 10-20ish schools, the cost of tuition for an average full-time law student doesn’t fluctuate THAT much beyond the ~$30,000 to $35,000 per year. So, assuming a negligible tuition difference means equating the value of the legal education among ABA schools. Legal education is unique in that it varies among individuals how well you are versed and educated in the law. It’s not like medical school where there is a defined parameter you learn and either you get it or you don’t. For example, you either understand that the heart pumps blood or you don’t. In contrast, law is interpretive. That’s not to say there is a lack of definites (e.g. murder is illegal) but the big picture is that lawyers take a set of circumstances and apply it to see if it fits a given prescribed rule.
Getting back to the issue at hand we can conclude that how good an education is not limited to the school you go to. As the quote in the article says, having difficulty finding a job isn’t restricted to lower-ranked schools. It’s not that firms are refusing to hire from those those, it’s that they aren’t really hiring that much at all. Much of that, I think, has to do with lawyers not retiring at or around the age of 55 and that they practice much longer. Common sense tells us that this prevents job vacancies. Also, in an economy that has been in the dumps (and continues to slump) people just do not have the disposable income to pay an attorney to fight a conviction, sue someone (or fight a suit), and so forth. This is doubly true for the cost-heavy burden of appealing a case. Therefore the actual USE of an attorney by John Q. Citizen has further been restricted to things of necessity such as wills/estates, land conveyance, and things of that nature. As you might suspect, these items pay significantly less and, in turn, firms by the very necessity of supply and demand pay attorneys less and require a smaller number of them to accomplish this.
It’s truly a cyclical problem that is really hurting young legal grads right now. I have a friend who is in a clerkship for a judge making ever-so-slightly more than an average Applebee’s server. Granted that is a governmental salary and, by and large, those are smaller in nature than those of private firms but it still is symbolic of the struggle.
Lucky me, I have a little over 2.5 years to go, so maybe things will be better by then.
That’s my 2 cents.
September 21st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
@Sethl: “maybe things will be better by then.” Do you really think this problem is cyclical, and attorneys will be retiring in droves in 2013? Are you sure you want to bet $100,000 on that?
@Donald: I am aware of that and I think that IS one of the main points of Kelly’s post – she wrote “What’s difficult for many of us to fathom is this concept that something like higher education, even with federal student aid, is just not something that all Americans can afford.” It’s a hard choice but how is saddling those individuals with debt they cannot EVER escape, and sending them into a job market where they cannot find jobs, better?
September 21st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
@Leah: Fair enough. Except there is a strong argument to be made that education is more crucial than ever. Maybe a law degree is not a smart bet. I think for most people it’s a bad investment. If you were to truly make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, however, it would affect all people who are borrowing money to fund their education, and that scares me. For example, despite the widespread perception that a college degree is “worthless,” It is well-documented that college graduates command a strong wage premium. As David Leonhardt of the New York Times has pointed out — correctly in my view — the real pay of college graduates continues to rise while the real pay of everyone else continues to fall. (See http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/the-value-of-college-2/?ref=business).
Now, maybe you’re right, and maybe the skeptics are right: fewer people should graduate from law school (and by extension college, trade school, etc.). I certainly agree that we need to do more to develop alternative and cheaper methods of education which enable people to secure the credentials and skills that the marketplace clearly values. My point is simply that, as a matter of policy, I don’t know if making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy is the right response.
Thank you for the pleasant discussion.
September 21st, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Great comments everyone! I have to agree with Donald regarding the push to make student loans discharable in bankruptcy. Leah makes a great point that this would likely curtail the practice of handing out loans to anyone who applies (which I believe has also contributed to the unchecked rise in tuition costs) – but doing so will definitely make higher education inaccessible to a lot of people. (I also have a philisophical problem with accepting the fact that the best solution we can come up with is to have everyone declare bankruptcy!)
What I really wanted to get across, as some of you correctly noted, is the idea that education does not seem to be affordable. There are two general approaches to solving this problem. We can work to lower costs so that education IS affordable or we can limit access to those who can afford it. Unfortunately most of the solutions that are being tossed about, such as reducing the amount of loans that go out or capping law school admissions, are aimed at limiting access. Only a few, such as getting rid of the third year of law school, really seem to be aimed at lowering costs.
An educated population is an investment that should ultimately benefit society, and it seems counterintuitive to turn people away who are willing to learn. A law degree, or any other degree for that matter, has tremendous intrinsic value, but it has to be able to pay for itself or it becomes a drain rather than a boon, pulling the entire economy down with it.
This could probably spout another blog post entirely, but a recent article from Slate magazine actually discusses curtailing costs, rather than limiting access. See what you think . . .
http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/moneyblog/archive/2010/09/20/could-we-make-all-college-tuition-free.aspx
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 am
You make some extremely insightful points in your succinct commentary.
The questions that you raise are extremely relevant…not just as this issue relates to Law School grads, but as it relates to higher education across the board:
-Can we reconcile our American meritocratic ideals with the prohibitive cost of advanced degrees?
-Can we continue as a society to push the message that “college is the answer” for America’s youth?
-Can we, in good conscience, accept that college may be the WRONG decision for many students from middle/lower-class families?
-What DOES this mean for capitalism, and is this the type of capitalistic society that we want?
Thanks for contributing to the conversation. I encourage everyone interested in this topic to visit the projectonstudentdebt.org – please educate yourself and your friends on these issues, and on progress being made on the Private Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2010 ( H.R. 5043).
September 22nd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Except for a few areas (like engineering, accounting, medical-related) a college degree is a bad choice. The government should stop subsidizing educations which set people up for financial failure. If that reduces peoples access to an education of liberal arts/arts, so be it. I earned a poli sci degree, which fortunately, my parents were able to pay for…trouble is, its not worth much, so of course all those liberal arts degree students apply to law school (me included, which I paid for with loans)…turns out a law degree isn’t worth much these days either. In America, we are taught that higher education is the key to financial success. The trouble is that not all education is equal. Until the 20th century, liberal arts education was reserved for the elite/independently wealthy, which makes sense because it doesn’t really make financial sense to pursue unless you can afford it debt-free. I would propose that all government-funded education (whether in the form of grants/insured loans) should be reserved for degrees of substance, and for degrees, which actually increase one’s potential for economic success, and the prosperity of the state/country.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Leah Weaver Says:
September 21st, 2010 at 9:20 am
“The unemployed j.d. who can’t find a job is able to discharge the debt and move on.”
…uh, I don’t think so. Ever hear of non-dischargeable debt? I have yet to see a bandruptcy judge discharge a law school loan.
November 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
@ Triple Tiger: Did you read Leah’s post? She was proposing the idea that graduate school loans be dischargeable so the lenders look more carefully at who qualifies for the loans. Leah’s post seemed pretty clear that she fully understands that law school loans are non-dischargeable.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
@ hmmmm – thanks.
@ Tripe Tiger – believe me, I am well aware that law school loans aren’t dischargeable. But I should have worded it better – what I meant was that if that debt could be discharged, “The unemployed j.d. who can’t find a job WOULD BE able to discharge the debt and move on.”
December 11th, 2010 at 9:20 am
I think if loans weren’t being given so freely, tuition wouldnt be so high.
Im gonna do a second bachelors in engineering and Im gonna have to do it in Monterrey Mexico because I simply cannot stand the fact that so many people here will embrace the high tuition and loans. It doesnt have to be like that
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:39 pm
“It’s difficult not to assign blame to the parties that appear to be profiting the most from the drunken free for all, and in the current situation, that’s not the students.”
No, it’s the law schools and the lenders. I have a horse in this race–a son who graduated from Northeastern Law School in 2007. He’s making his terribly high payments, but I wonder for how long he can do it. He passed the bar, and he has a good paying document review job, but he cannot take enough of a cut in pay to start a law job, so there is no visible way out for him. The law school financial aid people, and the deans, fundamentally just covered their eyes and ears and handed out the loans. Their logic was apparently, “All the law schools are doing it.” The kids who took the loans, their logic was, “All the law students are doing it.”
Everyone looked the other way. Everyone was a Good German. Everyone was a bureaucrat. Everyone argued that they were not really responsible for the harm they were doing. The Dean Emily Spieler, told me in person when I asked her to take in fewer students, “But that would mean I would have to get rid of an assistant dean.”
And when I asked to learn about the terms which my quite immature son had signed, signing his life away, they bureaucratically weaseled out. I knew him to be immature and very like a teenager. I knew he had never had a job. I knew he was kidding himself about his prospects because it was there in his tone of voice.
But the Good Germans said, “He has privacy rights, you know–you can’t know these facts.” It all smelled bad to me–it had the smell of denial and decay and not looking you in the eye. Now it turns out that my son was not the only foolish kid suckered by these self-interested moral midgets. It turns out that there are thousands, may be ten thousand.
If Emily Spieler wants to write a monthly check to help my son out, with his impossible debt load going on for decades, she should get in touch with the worried father, initials JM, she remembers from 2005-6-7.
January 23rd, 2011 at 11:58 pm
…uh, I don’t think so. Ever hear of non-dischargeable debt? I have yet to see a bandruptcy judge discharge a law school loan.