Saturday, May 25, 2013

"Admission Through Performance"

"Law School Offers Second Chance," by Karen Sloan (National Law Journal)

An article about the Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law, an unaccredited law school whose mission is to produce attorneys to service the underserved populations in Southern Appalachia. Duncan is hosting three free LSAT prep courses. If that whole "standardized test score" thing doesn't work out, don't sweat it. Duncan started a new "Admission Through Performance" program. Duncan at absolutely no charge will enroll you in a free, four-week course on the Federal Rules of Evidence taught by the Duncan faculty. If you do well, meaning a 70 on a 100 point final exam, consider yourself a 1L.

*****


Michael Hedlund, after 10 years of bankruptcy litigation, received a hardship discharge on $53,000 of $85,000 in student loans. Mr. Hedlund failed the bar exam twice, then locked his keys inside his car while stopping to get coffee on the third attempt thereby quashing his dreams forever. Congratulations to Mr. Hedlund for gutting out 10 years of bankruptcy litigation -- which likely cost more than the amount discharged if he had been properly charged.


*****

"US, Chinese law schools to deepen collaboration," by Caroline Berg (China Daily USA)

Columbia University Law School and Peking University Law School signed a memo of understanding to "expand opportunities." Seems like every educational institution in the US from local school districts on up is trying to capture Chinese money through one way or another.

*****

"Commendable Conduct Award," by Steven J. Harper (AmLaw Daily)

Harper gives kudos to University of Kansas School of Law Dean Stephen Mazza for voluntarily reducing the size of the incoming class from 175 down to 120 just because it was "the right thing to do."

*****

"Rutgers Students Join Holt in Opposition of Rising Student Loan Rates," by Katrina Rossos (East Brunswick Patch)

Harvard Law grad complains that high student loans are preventing him from moving on in his life. Article concerns H.R. 1911 which seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on, or after, July 1, 2013. This bill passed the House of Representatives on Thursday morning in a 224 to 193 vote. Interest rates on Stafford loans would no longer be fixed but would rise or fall from year to year with the government's cost of borrowing. The initial rate for the loans would be about 4.4 percent but in coming years it could increase to a cap of 8.5 percent.

Elizabeth Warren is pushing for student loan interest rates to be tied to cut to near zero. Warren is proposing the Student Loan Fairness Act where student loan interest would be cut to the low .75 percent interest rate that banks pay to the Federal Reserve for short-term loans. This would be a one-year fix until a long-term solution could be agreed upon.

Stafford loans are set to double from the current rate of 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2013.

19 comments:

  1. Regarding Lincoln Memorial "University" Duncan Sewer of Law, will students who take the four-week FRE course receive 20 points for attending all classes or for correctly entering their names?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will get to retake it as many times as necessary until they get that sweet, sweet 70%.

      Delete
  2. Although I believe Congress should amend the bankruptcy laws to allow the dischargeability of student loans going forward (no retroactive application), the 9th Circuit's reasoning in the Hedlund's decision is completely flawed. The Debtor in that case compounded his hardship by missing the bar exam because he locked his keys in a car (give me a break) and decided to get married and have kids when he couldn't get his finances in order. This is no different than a Welfare Queen pumping out kids to continue to feed off of the Federal teat. The 9th Circuit is a ultra liberal court so expect that decision to get appealed to SCOTUS. I have read more sympathetic cases on student loan dischargeability (e.g., where Debtor was a paraplegic, or was permanently disabled). Hedlund is a fully able bodied person who squandered his education (he graduated law school in 1997, at a time when getting a legal job wasn't difficult, hell the guy was even working at the PD's office before getting canned for flunking the bar exam twice).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 1997, getting a legal job was still difficult(but not nearly impossible like today).

      Delete
  3. at 7:48:

    "Although I believe Congress should amend the bankruptcy laws to allow the dischargeability of student loans going forward (no retroactive application)...."

    Why no retroactive application? Congress felt it was ok back in 1998 to make student loans non-dischargeable in BK, retroactively. Put another way, any of us who started school prior to October 1998 could bk our loans but the Clinton admin decided that it should be disallowed, so they took the right away and applied it to all loans PRIOR to 1998 as well as moving forward.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sure, they can make dischargability easier with the result as follows: "Let's go to law school. If it doesn't work out, we can just flush the loans." What do you think will happen to class sizes then?

    Same goes for any easier terms. If you want smaller class sizes, you need to make admission more onerous - not less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ TITCR. Finally, someone who gets it.

      I was starting to think that this site was some kind of tax thief convention.

      It still pretty much is.

      Delete
    2. Or we could allow discharging of debt and institute a mandatory minimum LSAT score of 165.

      Delete
    3. ^ Or or **OR** we could just institute a minimum LSAT score without trying to force the taxpayers to pay off everyone's student loans..

      Delete
    4. What you don't get is that these loans are never going to be paid off anyway. You can sit there and rant all you want, but it will not change this basic fact. The status quo means tens of millions of financial zombies in our economy (this is hardly limited to law school). These were the people that we all thought we make up our middle class. These kids were sold a bill of goods, ten years ago the mantra was "education debt is the best kind of debt", now its "you should have known better". If the goal is to punish those you went into debt for school, fine whatever. But why should any bankruptcy be allowed? Why is education debt held to such a high standard? The student debtors are taxpayers too.

      Delete
    5. ^ For the most part they aren't - unless you're talking about sales taxes (none of which go to the federal government that you're asking to eat the loans).

      Education debt is held to a "higher standard" because it is the sole and unique instance in which a penniless student can get an unsecured loan for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because the amount borrowed is so comparatively enormous, the voters have refused to make this unique type of debt nondischargeable.

      And rightly so.

      I already paid off my student loans. If yours are forgiven, should I also get back all the money that I repaid?

      Delete
    6. slightly OT but I'll repeat my idea: Congress should cap loans at $25,000 per individual per year. Watch tuition prices fall (and lawprof salaries).

      --Jim

      Delete
    7. "I already paid off my student loans. If yours are forgiven, should I also get back all the money that I repaid?"

      Asked and answered. Nevertheless: to qualify for bankruptcy protection, a debtor has to file a petition with a bankruptcy court, and demonstrate a lack of ability to repay the debts. The FUNDAMENTAL POINT of bankruptcy is to provide relief to people and entities hopelessly mired in debt. Since you were able to repay your loans, you obviously wouldn't qualify, would you?

      When you see an elderly person riding in a scooter paid for by Medicare, would you argue that they shouldn't get a scooter unless the government provides one to you, as well?

      Delete
    8. "Because the amount borrowed is so comparatively enormous, the voters have refused to make this unique type of debt nondischargeable. And rightly so."

      Rightly so? If the taxpayers were oh-so-wise, maybe they'd vote to have the government stop making huge loans to people who obviously won't be able to repay.

      Bankruptcy for student loans is only an issue because we got away from the model of affordable public education. My father is a chemical engineer. He attended a public university, and was able to pay as he went, working part-time jobs. Why does school now have to cost as much as buying a house? It's horrible public policy.

      Delete
    9. @731,

      That Medicare scooter is charity - or perhaps the fruit of an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.

      Student debt is ALREADY dischargeable for people who lack the "ability to repay their debts." It's called the "undue hardship" standard.

      Able-bodied people in their 20s and 30s don't need charity. They need to STFU and pay back the money they owe - one month at a time, if necessary.

      Delete
  5. I do not support the non-dischargeability of student loans. I repaid mine, almost $95,000.00 with interest last year. It took my 10 years to pay off my debt. I lived like a pauper during my repayment period and made many sacrifices. Why should graduates today get a free pass? If these loans won't get repaid, as a commenter stated, then the government has my blessing to hound, garnish and levy what little property these deadbeat debtors have.

    Look, I hate the higher education scam, especially the law school variety. However, kids graduating law school since 2010 had the knowledge and should have known that employment stats were lies. They consciously or subconsciously took a gamble and most lost. They should be held accountable. Anyway, I am not sure why we are debating this issue since Congress will NEVER retract the non-dischargeability provisions on student loans. The banks own Congress. They own you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think what you mean, genius, is that you support the non-dischargeability of student loans.

      Delete
  6. In many states you can take the bar as many times as you need to. Why didn't this guy take the bar in another state and then move there if he passed?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Huge student loans are a huge burden. Making them dischargable would help many people trapped w/ massive student loans.

    But then the government would end up giving away tons of money to students who discharge their loans. Law schools and universities could still charge massive tuitions, so they wouldn't care one way or the other. In fact, dischargeability would make massive student loans seem less scary, and Higher Ed might have a new incentive to hike tuition, or at least a new talking point for marketing. "There's never been a better time....!"

    Dischargability would have to follow some reform that makes law school / Higher Ed cheaper to solve the high-tuition problem and not hurt the taxpayers (as much).

    How can the govt make tuition prices go down, besides outright mandates or micro-managing regulations?

    Cap student loans at $25,000 per student, per year.

    --Jim

    ReplyDelete