Too many student loans to be a lawyer?

People are talking about the NY Times story about the guy who finally passed the NY bar exam on his fourth attempt, but appellate court rejected him on character and fitness grounds because they said he had too much student loan debt: $480,000.

It started out as approximately $317,000 after he finished his second law program, but then penalties and fees for nonpayment caused it to mushroom to $480,000 (see here, the article says something different). How is he supposed to get a job that will allow him to repay that if he isn't allowed to practice law? Of course, even if he were admitted, a 47-year-old with his dubious record isn't going to find a law job in this economy anyway.

It seems to me that at some point on his journey, he figured out that he had little chance of ever making enough money to make payments on his loans, so he figured that he might as well borrow more money to spend a year in London (where he obtained the second law degree).

I support doing away with student loans (as a special category of loan exempt from bankruptcy protection) entirely. It would be harsh in some cases, but it would prevent people from getting hopelessly in debt for useless education, it would force colleges to do something about rising costs, and maybe it would even get employers to look beyond degrees and instead just determine whether the person applying for the job is a smart person.

Comments

[Peter]

Higher education and medical care should be the same: free, and rationed.

[russ]

As a lawyer you get put in charge of other people's money. This guy has no respect for other people's money (i.e. the banks). He should not be a lawyer

[Turambar]

Its amusing how out of touch the Times commentators are in comparison to to the WSJ. Half the time they are unsure of the basic facts of the story they are commenting on (other than they know everything is unfair).

The guy never made a loan payment to Sallie Mae in 26 years but he only started at SUNY schools in 1992, which is 17 years ago, when he was 30. I understand he had to go to community college and get a GED, but are we really supposed to believe he it took him 9 years to get through a 2 year CC? Obviously he had income during these period and the opportunity to make repayments, but didnt.

SUNY Buffalo has a law school that has decent respect in the upstate area and cheap instate tuition. What was the point in going to Hastings at $32K/yr between 00-04?

It seems to me that the guy has low character has has been a layabout living off loans. Its up to the bar if they feel his character is too low to be admitted.

[Abe]

Yes -
the student loan scam is just as evil as the subprime mortgage scam.

Subprime mortgages : Loan money to people who will never be able to earn a high enough income to pay down the mortgage

Student loans : Loan money to people who will never be able to earn a high enough income to pay down the student loan.

Obviously you are right, Half Sigma. End most government guaranteed student loans. Let for-profit businesses determine which young people are likely to pay back their loans and loan only to them. If a young person has an IQ that is too low to allow him to ever earn a decent income, no one will lend him money. If a young person wants to borrow money to go to a TTT law school, no one will lend him money. Young people need to study professions like Nursing and Accounting, professions in which they actually WILL be able to pay back the loans.

Half, keep beating the drum on this. This theme is getting no play from the press - not the republican press and not the democratic press. Both political parties benefit from keeping the student loan scam going

[Lover of Wisdom]

Couldn't Law and Med schools do what other graduate departments do? Admit less students but offer tuition remission and stipends?

[silly girl]

It is my understanding that in the guaranteed student loan program, the guarantee is to the lender. The gov't promises to pay the lender the principal AND interest of the loan when someone defaults. Some may argue that they cannot discharge a student loan debt even in bankruptcy. That may be so, but in the interim the bank is paid and the gov't is the collection agency. So it is we who end up being overcharged for the failings of fellow citizens.

The guy could have been a loser at a lot less cost to taxpayers.

[king obama]

So, how is this guy ever going to pay back the student loans?

I don't think that working at Starbucks is going to provide him with enough money to pay back that much debt.

If I were him, I would leave the country. Preferably somewhere cheap to live like South America.

[HS: Do you need to speak Spanish to live there? Honduras sounds like a nice place, with a stable government (proven ability to resist would-be leftist dictators).]

[Alex]

He did graduate from a tier 1 law school though. Apparently US Hastings is #39 on USNews. It's not in the T14, but I'd be surprised if Hastings graduates didn't have any career prospects.

[Kevin K]

Why does law school cost so much? Its not like they need a bunch of lab space or something. What are they doing with all that money?

[mnjohn]

"If I were him, I would leave the country. Preferably somewhere cheap to live like South America."

Argentine girls are lovely and white, also the age of consent is 14(which it should be in every developed country). This is the ideal Southern American destination.

[king obama]

"Why does law school cost so much? Its not like they need a bunch of lab space or something. What are they doing with all that money?"

It costs so much because of the student loan racket. Schools routinely treat their law schools as "cash cows." Law professors and law school administrators are very well paid.

In fact, all professional grad schools cost way too much. Getting an MBA is also extremely expensive at a lot of schools. The schools seem to think they can overcharge at professional schools since they providing "real world" skills that are marketable. Wrong.

I think a good compromise between doing away with student loans and keeping them is to only allow them for undergrad education. If you want a loan for a graduate degree, you would need to get a private, non-government secured loan.

The education system in this country is broken.

[HS: Correct. Law professors get paid more than any other kind of professor, but even still, law schools are profitable for their institutions. Unlike medical school, or even engineering, law school requires nothing more expensive than classrooms, and they are even cutting back on law libraries because law research is moving towards eventually being fully computer based (but we are not their yet). Especially at state schools, they charge higher tuition for law and MBA students and private schools give less grant-based financial aid.]

[Ned]

Some years ago I had a friend who was the business manager for a clinical department at a nearby medical school. He told me about a young faculty member in that department, whom I knew slightly. This promising young doctor had attended a prominant private (expensive) medical school. He had completed a well-known residency and was considered a great catch for the department. Now I didn't know this doctor very well, but he always seemed a bit of a phoney to me. He and his wife lived in a pretty crummy apartment, but they were always talking about the expensive houses they were considering buying. They both drove old clunkers, but that was because they just couldn't make up their minds as to buying a Volvo, Lexus or Mercedes. Maybe they would buy one of each.

Anyway, my friend the business agent got a big surprise when a marshall walked in and served him with papers to garnishee this brilliant young doctor's salary. It turned out that this guy had gone through medical school on a National Health Service Corps scholarship. The deal here is a year for a year - for each year in medical school that the NHSC pays for, you have to pay them back with a year of service - usually in some wretched inner city clinic or remote Indian reservation. Now this doctor was a bit of a bon vivant who enjoyed his status as a rising young star at the medical school. So he kept rejecting the NHSC assignments as "unsatisfactory." Eventually they got sick of this and told him to take the next one "or else." He told them to stuff it. So they declared him in default and, when he refused to pay, garnisheed his salary at the statutory maximum. The penalty, by the way, is triple your debt, plus interest. The total was mid-six figures. I bet he's still paying. I don't think he ever got that Mercedes. But at least doctors, unlike lawyers, can always get a job.

[Shawn]

At that age his best bet may be to just go on disability.

[Shawn]

Who is going to hire him knowing that it took him so many years to pass an easy bar exam like NY's?

[black]

This guy is screwed. He has a law degree but cannot practice law as he's barred from the profession.

He's overeducated, thus overqualified for pretty much every job besides a lawyer. He can work as a manager for a corporation or finance firm, but why would they want to hire a candidate with a law degree? Won't that make him appear as some sort of slacker who doesn't know where their career is going?

I guess he only qualifies for jobs where they don't give a crap about your work history, just as long as you have a pulse and aren't a convicted felon.

Starbucks may take a chance, but the hiring manager will look at his application and know that they're qualified to be a lawyer. Why invest time and money into someone who will leave Starbucks once they find a job as a lawyer? Of course, he can't find a job as a lawyer but the hiring manager won't know that.

I guess his only hope is driving a cab and wait for the revolution.

[HS: Starbucks doesn't do a $1000 background check for hiring a barista. If he just puts down that he was living with him mom the last 10 years, that's probably enough to get the job.]

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Its amusing how out of touch the Times commentators are in comparison to to the WSJ."

Didn't HS show libertarians are smarter than liberals?

[Turambar]

"This guy is screwed. He has a law degree but cannot practice law as he's barred from the profession. "

He does have an Masters in education. That little detour didnt fit very well into his narrative of always wanting to be a lawyer, but at least he can fall back on it and go into teaching.

Perhaps he can inspire some young people to believe anything is possible with OPM.

[Gannon]

Age of consent in Argentina is 13/16 by the way. 16 or above is always safe. Under 13 is always rape unless the age difference is less than three years or something like that. In principle, 13-15 year old girls can have sex, but it can be declared ilegal if the court can establish sexual inmatirity of the teen or there was a relationship of trust (Courts only investiga after the complaint of a parent. In practice, guys over 21 dating girls aged 13-15 should have the parents permission.
In Chile AOC is 14, in Uruguay 15 if I recall correctly. All this applies to hetero sex. Homosexual sex is 18 in pretty much in all Latinamerican Countries.

[BrunoBrazil]

Siggy, again I am drumming:
what about no-frills schools

1-No research

2-only teaching. Instructors with lots of classwork to do to teach the most with less money.

3-no sports.

4-a city building, not a distant campus that is a fantastic appearance but too expensive.

5-living at home with parents while at college, commuting to a city building and returning to mama´s house at the end of the day.

You can call that a crap school with no prestige, but is is the most important: affordable. It has low cost and at least it won´t ruin the student. People who want to be good in their field can study and become successful professionals.

Let´s get real, the USA in the last years was a debt-based society which can´t go on taking more debt, because the banks collapsed with so many owing and not paying. We need to get real about low costs and being able to pay in cash, not taking student loans.

Absurd? Any college in the developing world that is not state-run works exactly like that. Also remeber that, outside the USA, the attitude to loans is more conservative and nobody will take so much college debt like the americans.

We need to make a college that has the bare minimum so people can go into it and it not becoming a lifetime burden (student loans).

[HS: "You can call that a crap school with no prestige, but is is the most important: affordable."

Well that is a crap school, but once upon a time City University was considered a very good school because it attracted smart people who couldn't afford going away to school. Nowadays, student loans plus financial aid makes a prestigious education doable for everyone, but the loans come back to kill you. Without student loans, inexpensive commuter schools would become prestigious again.]

[BrunoBrazil]

College = embezzlement.

To graduate from college, you take debts that are beyond what you can pay with your salary. To worsen things, too many people go to college and even a gifted Joe can´t distinguish himself from lazy James, because both have degrres and the employer can´t distinguish both resumes.

Sorry, but, if I were American, I would not go to law school.

I am at law school now, but my monthly tuiton is 200 dollars a year. If I had to take debt from college and not to know if I can pay them off, not for me.

[BrunoBrazil]

College = embezzlement. Or pure fraud.

To graduate from college, you take debts that are beyond what you can pay with your salary. To worsen things, too many people go to college and even a gifted Joe can´t distinguish himself from lazy James, because both have degrres and the employer can´t distinguish both resumes.

Sorry, but, if I were American, I would not go to law school.

I am at law school now, but my monthly tuiton is 200 dollars. If I had to take debt from college and not to know if I can pay them off, not for me.

[OneSTDV]

"it would even get employers to look beyond degrees and instead just determine whether the person applying for the job is a smart person."

I don't understand why employers don't advocate for standardized examinations, which would effectively undermine the college degree as a proxy for intelligence. Charles Murray proposes national exams should be required in all fields. This would undoubtedly level the playing field as elite colleges (which cost a ton of money) wouldn't be the only route to undeniably prove one's worth. It would increase the meritocratic aspect and social mobility of our society, truly allowing the poor an oppurtunity for success.

This seems like a great idea to me because equality of opportunity is an important facet of America. Funny I see no liberals getting behind this idea even though they constantly pontificate about the rich/poor gap. I think we all know why they don't support it (hint: see Ricci case).

[black]

"Perhaps he can inspire some young people to believe anything is possible with OPM."

A teacher's role in society isn't to inspire but to rather make sure young people molded into disciplined workers who are able to meet deadlines.

Right? Or am I wrong?

[Peter]

"what about no-frills schools
1-No research
2-only teaching. Instructors with lots of classwork to do to teach the most with less money.
3-no sports.
4-a city building, not a distant campus that is a fantastic appearance but too expensive.
5-living at home with parents while at college, commuting to a city building and returning to mama´s house at the end of the day."

Change no. 3 to "No sports except football and basketball (and some women's sports to satisfy Title IX)" and you're onto something. Having major-league football and basketball teams is vitally important to raising a college's national profile and reputation. It's been well-documented that a very good season for either team will increase the quality of applicants for at least a year or two. A good example is George Mason University in Virginia, which saw a remarkable boost in applicant quality after its basketball team did very well in the NCAA tournament a few years ago.

I have some personal knowledge of this factor, in reverse to be specific, having grown up in Connecticut. It was a common complaint that outside the Northeast a degree from the University of Connecticut was less useful than it should have been, because at the time UConn had a minor league football team. It almost certainly caused the university to lose quality applicants. Note that this was a self-reinforcing thing; quality applicants would stay away due to UConn's diminished national profile, and that would cause its academic reputation to slip. Things have gotten better because UConn finally began playing major league football, plus of course it's a basketball powerhouse.

I'll pre-empt any "but wait" comments and acknowledge that yes, the Ivy League universities have excellent reputations despite playing minor league football and having crappy basketball teams. They're clearly an extreme case, so what's true for them would not be true for less highly esteemed universities. And note that some other top universities do play football and basketball on the highest levels, for example Stanford and Duke.

[Stu]

Half, I am an employer and I hire on the basis of standardized tests NOT on the basis of the college a person goes to.

Applicants are required to have the college board directly send me a report on all of their test scores, this includes SAT, SAT2 and others

To me this is a no brainer. I am slightly worried about lawsuit risk, so I tell everyone inside my firm and outside that I just use the standardized tests as one small part of the process, but I really rely on standardized tests plus credit report for most of the hiring decision.

I find that a credit report combined with salary history is also something I want to look at. In general someone making a good income who congenitally pays his bills late is a doofus that lacks organization or self discipline and I won't hire him.

I should add that I am hiring for jobs that require IQ over 125, so I am dealing with a certain segment of the market.

Anyone else on this blog doing hiring of 125+ IQ people ? Want to share what you find effective

[BrunoBrazil]

"Having major-league football and basketball teams is vitally important to raising a college's national profile and reputation".

An absurdly expensive American tradition that makes you only go to a college that has football, but it means an absurd tuition, because, after all, you have to pay a stadium, players, coaches, physical trainers, buy equipment. What is the relevance of it to the learning that actually takes place inside the classrooms?

Do people know more content on biochemistry, calculus, history, finance or constitutional law because there is a football team? As far as I know, college is an intellectual pursuit, not a physical one.

Are my thoughts absurd? I think that, with the ridiculous debt people are taking to study, there would have lots of students who would prefer not to have a sports team, a lower cost and consequent lower tuition. America has to live in reality, not in a fantasy created by loans.

[BrunoBrazil]

This seems like a great idea to me because equality of opportunity is an important facet of America. Funny I see no liberals getting behind this idea even though they constantly pontificate about the rich/poor gap. I think we all know why they don't support it (hint: see Ricci case).

Perhaps because blacks would score lower?

[bbartlog]

Applicants are required to have the college board directly send me a report on all of their test scores

You're cruising for a lawsuit unless your company is small. Your approach *will* have disparate racial impact, leaving you in the position of proving that the SATs are relevant to the job you're hiring for. No doubt you can make a decent argument that intelligence is relevant to any job, but between Griggs v Duke Power and stare decisis I don't think much of your chances of winning in court with that argument.

At tech companies I worked for I was in a couple of cases in charge of evaluating intelligence of applicants. We did a puzzle / problem-solving section of the interview. This mirrors Microsoft practice (which means that if someone *did* sue on this basis, we'd probably have heavy backing). Obviously you need some experience in evaluating this and it's not as precise as an intelligence test, but even if all you can do is estimate whether someone is 110 IQ / 120 IQ / 130 IQ / 140 IQ / 150+ IQ, you have a useful piece of information, and no paper trail that could be used to indict your process.

[To the place where I belong]

I work in the student loan industry and often enjoy reading newspaper reports of "student loan horror stories". The students that reporters interview often make absurd claims about their student loans (e.g. "I went on forbearance for a year and my balance doubled!" etc.) and the reporters seem to do nothing to check the accuracy. Granted, their claims are less absurd if they are talking about private student loans rather than federally-guaranteed ones, but the typical article does a very poor job of making the distinction between the two.

That said, the American federally-guaranteed student loan system is absurd. Obama is trying to move away from the current crony-capitalist model to more of a centralized-socialist model, with everyone borrowing from the Department of Education. There will still be a crony-capitalist element, because there will be big servicing contracts handed out to a few big corporations (Sallie Mae, Nelnet, etc.), as opposed to the current system where small, medium, and gigantic firms compete with each other for federally-subsidized profits.

There's certainly no reason for the government to be involved in this at all.

[silly girl]

Plenty of jobs require certification. Accountants, actuaries, doctors, electricians, nurses, ... lawyers. Oh yeah that is where we started.

[Nanonymous]

>>>Having major-league football and basketball teams is vitally important to raising a college's national profile and reputation<<<

Maybe. But U Chicago does not have Athletics at all and, thank you very much, is doing fine.

[Dwight Shrute]

The last paragraph is so very absurd. Do away with student loans? Force employers to look at how "smart" a person is.

Please tell my you will never run for any office of any sort. Say I have to get surgery, I don't care how brilliant my surgeon is, if he or she hasn't gone through medical school, taken the exams, and done the internship then he or she should have no buisiness as a medical professional.

Drive into the city, what do you see? Tall buildings and complex modern architecture. Now are you telling me you want a random person off of the block doing the electrical, structural, mecanical, civil, and environmental engineering that goes into all of that?

Sure college is expensive, I'm going to have almost $70000 worth of loans in four years, and I'm just as happy about it as anyone. Doing away with student loans is only going to discourage people from going to school. If colleges take your approach and drastically drive down costs to attract students, the quality of the education will suffer greatly. It would be a disaster and with our education so far behind other leading countries that isn't a good idea.

Lastly, loans encourage students to finish school and get the degree. It creates an accountability in the student and weeds out the undetermined - those who could be equally as "smart" as those who try but lack the audacity to finish something.

Please, don't include a headline of "the new era of politics and common sense" with such ignorant statements.