I think your concerns can be addressed by more central planning from the state and a greater pressure on costs. (tracking of students, limitations on majors, reduction of the number of years it takes to get a degree, more online courses, etc.). I also think it would be appropriate to study the European countries who have seemly solved this dilemma based on graduation rates and student debt levels (or at least having done a better job handling this problem than we have).

I have no problem with education being subsidized by taxpayers — education should be affordable.

I do not support, however, the notion that taxpayers should support every single individual’s “right” to go to law school — particularly where we know the demand is not there. My views might change if there were less law schools and they were more selective. Let’s face it — there are enough law schools out there, where just about anyone can fill out an application and be admitted if they are willing to rack up enough debt. You’re right, I don’t want responsibility for that debt.

Also, what if I want to go to law school, medical school and get my PhD?. Should taxpayers flip the bill? I would certainly be well-educated — which should be a societal value. I know this is not what you’re suggesting — but where do you draw the line? I agree completely with your concern with the rising cost of education.

We shouldn’t think about this problem as being simply about “law gradautes” its all people with student loans

“Obama’s plan calls for limiting payment on student loans to no more than 10 percent of that portion of their salary that exceeds $16,245, which is 150 percent of the poverty rate. Anyone making less than that amount would owe nothing.”

“In addition, the plan forgives loans – no matter what the remaining balance – after 10 years for those working in government or non-profit jobs. Those working in the private sector would have their loans forgiven after 20 years.”

This is far better than the status quo and would offer serious relief to a large portion of the population that is struggling badly. It would also help the country by pushing talented people into the public sector.

Sadly though, I don’t think this proposal will be adopted. I already saw the clips on the internet of the Fox News Propaganda machine hammering away at this proposal.

First, even though this is a law blog and were focusing on Law School loan issues, the real problem is the way we fund higher education in the US. This is a societal problem in which we try to supply a public good mostly through private sector funding. It is neither cost efficient (the US spends much more on Higher Education than other developed countries) nor effective at getting Americans into school (were falling behind other developed countries in our rate of educational achievement.

So in the end, if I understand both of your arguments, the current system is basically the result of the tax phobia of the American voter. Both of you cite the goal of avoiding taxing people to pay for college. Anonymous states that he doesn’t way to pay for people to go to school. Mark cites this as a worthy goal. I disagree. We all benefit from having a more educated work force, in the form of higher productivity and greater economic growth.

The current system is neither cost efficient. The US spends much more on Higher Education than other developed countries. Neither is it effective at getting Americans into school were falling behind other developed countries in our rate of educational achievement. We should study other countries to figure out they have kept college affordable. If this means higher taxes, so be it. The present situation is far worse than having to pay slightly higher taxes.

It would be far cheaper to just have the government directly fund student’s education. The government would be able to assert a heavy downward pressure on prices. This is similar to the health care sector, were the government is more effective than the private sector.

But enjoy your lower taxes

The eventual answer is to find ways to encourage those smart young people who are flexible about what they want to do into a career fields where their efforts are more needed.

The short term problem is what do with all those people who made what they thought was a smart decision in getting a legal education, only to have the rug pulled out from them now. I don’t think most of them even want a discharge — they just want to be able to do something meaningful and live the semblence of the American dream (home, car, family, etc.) There are no easy answers to this conundrum.

However, there is a very real cost to having the government back student loans. If such debt is suddenly now dischargeable — that cost increases greatly.

With the over-saturation in the profession (even well before the recession), I am not sure taxpayers should be asked to back every individual’s aspirations to be a lawyer, doctor, vet, etc. — more than the public already does. Obviously, if someone is willing to take on debt to reach their goals — that is great. The fact is any career choice is a gamble.

A difficult issue — no doubt — but I’d like to think there are better solutions out there.

I agree that neither consequence is particularly appealing, but neither is the situation that a growing number of law grads are finding themselves in. It only becomes apparent that their decision was “ill-advised” after it’s too late. Going to law school actually works out pretty well for some people.

I personally don’t want to pay for students’ ill-advised decisions to go to law school.

Student loans are simply not comparable to other loans, which require at least some indicia that you have the ability to pay them off before you are lent the money. That is a very real difference.