FIRST to say.. fuck minnesoTTTa

FIRST!

And for the record, one could argue that it isn't just the law school administrations that are unaware of their surroundings... Those applying to go to law school are also living under a rock.

- Rising 2-L who is seeing the light...

No Elie, that statement doesn't beg the question; it raises it.

I disagree -
Law school should become prohibitively expensive. There are too many lawyers as it is and there needs to be a decrease in students. Raising tuition does two things. Those that are trust fund babies will pay full-price. This will also allow schools to offer greater scholarships to people with talent that cannot afford full-price and lenders are unwilling to loan 300K for law school. Make it harder to attend law school not easier.

OHMYLORD ELIE, PLEASE GET OFF YOUR GODDAMN SOAPBOX. NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL, IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO TAKE ON THE DEBT, DON'T BECOME A LAWYER. PLAIN AND SIMPLE

It actually makes sense:

1) money has to come from somewhere.
2) despite the price increase, there will probably be higher competition for state schools now that private tuition has gone through the roof, while the employment prospects have gone down the crapper.

/non-indebted Rutgers Law Grad - biglaw associate

Michigan's tuition is $46K for out-of-state and $43K for in-state. They don't fucking need a fee increase, goddamn pigdogs.

6 = racist, for expecting blacks to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

Where's the Bush avatar? I really need to thank him now.

If the ABA would require post-grad employment after 6 months to be at least at 75%, this would eliminate much of the TTTs out there. Require affidavits from the students saying that they're employed too, so the school can't just fraud the system. If they don't get 75% of the graduating law students, then no accreditation. The ABA should have the same policy for schools that drop something like 20% of its class from 1L to graduation. If the school is kicking out kids or the kids are too stupid to pass, then drop that TTT. There would still be a ton of crappy law schools, but supply of lawyers would significantly decrease.

The author's analogy between the tuition increase and the French revolution leads me to think that some law school deans will be beheaded soon.

10 - You're really going to try to blame Bush for the failings of the Big Law model????

We all bitch and whine, but it kind of makes sense if you think about it, and we'd do the same thing if we were calling the shots. In the private market, revenues fall during a tough economy, so cuts have to be made. But for a non-profit university, revenues do not fall, because there's always going to be an endless supply of students lining up to pay tuition, no matter how high it goes (and the private lenders enable this of course). We can sit here and moralize about how its bad for tuition to go up, but they can get away with it, so they will.

One simple fix is for the ABA to prohibit accredited law schools from admitting any applicant who cannot (a) draw a bimodal distribution, as for example of attorney starting salaries, (b) explain what it means, and (c) explain, in writing, why he or she expects to get a starting salary near the right-hand node, or in the alternative explain how he or she will stretch a starting salary in the left-hand node to cover repaying the applicant's student loans.

-- Isaac Laquedem

Current law students should sue their schools for fraudulent inducement.

Technically, Ellie...any respectful kid would not ask their parents to pay for an education that does not provide the necessary return. Further, any parent worth a lick would tell that self-entitled kid she's crazy if she thinks daddy's going to pay the overpriced tuition.

Warning sign--high % of graduates in "Business/Industry" work. This does not mean in house or compliance/HR work. This means selling lattes at Starbucks.

Suck my ass and milk my vagina!

Starbury

I hope we can change the tax rate on law school tuition.
- BHO

Here's a thought: (a) Stop paying the tenured law school Professors so goddamn much, and (b) cut the credit requirement from 80-85 credits down to 50-60.

Law School is a scam.

Law schools aren't alone in pricing tuition independent of the likely return on the student's investment. Culinary school grads are typically $45,000 in debt and lining up for $9/hr jobs after graduation.
Lawyers are such whiners. We're not special - and we're not the only profession with debt.

NYC to 190K!

Former Seton Hall Summer at Orrick.

What 6 said.

14 - I understand your point, but don't think it is absolutely right. On one hand, any financial crisis creates a situation where many people prefer to continue their education instead of looking for jobs, particularly because there are few or no jobs available. The number of grad students going to law schools also increases under these circumstances. This pattern is not very reasonable, since people are trying to supply the market that doesn't really need that supply. The biggest beneficiaries, therefore, are neither the market nor the students, but colleges that have an excellent opportunity to make more money.
On the other hand, any education is essentially an asset. Its cost should be predetermined by its real value, i.e. the benefit it may eventually bring. Therefore, increasing the cost of education when its real value decreases does not make much sense.

In a few states people can still read for the law. Maybe more states should offer that option and make it a little less burdensome, so that people who REALLY want to be lawyers have another option. And although I am sure nobody recalls, back before the 1950s, a law degree was simply another bachelors degree, not a "juris doctorate". And why on earth is law school 3 years? Two years would be sufficient.

I am Black and I was raised to believe that I do not have to pay for anything because of 1000 years of oppression by the white man.

Malcolm Sex

Elie, as always, you miss the obvious: The law schools have no reason to care about the economic realities of graduates. The demand for seats far outstrips the supply, and prestigious law schools can raise tuition and still see only a minimal dip in demand-- easily compensated for by just a slight reduction in admission standards. Tuition is still well below the market clearing price. How much would Harvard have to charge before it wouldn't be worth it to go? $70,000 a year in tuition? Michigan/Virginia/Texas/UCLA/Boalt can get away with less, but still quite a bit more than they are currently.

So---what's the problem? Schools can raise their tuition. Prospective students can choose whether or not to go. Really, what other analysis do we need here?

Let's not kid ourselves here. The ABA and states' bars are staffed by godless pigs. As long as each board member gets a turn to be bar president and as long as Joe Partner gets his "Nebraska Super Lawyer" Award each year nothing will change. It's a complete con. If you were collecting checks from the ABA and they gave you a nice office, you'd feel the same.

I'm not in favor of a "bailout" of student borowers, but I am very much in favor of raising the amount of the student loan interest tax deduction. Currently, there are caps on both income and the amount of the deduction itself. I believe the deduction should be available regardless of income and that the full amount of student loan interest paid be deductable. This would do a lot of people a lot of good and help stimulate the economy without bailing anyone out.

4 FTW

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy. Similar to (yet distinct from) a circular argument. Just because people use it incorrectly more often than not doesn't mean you should.

Godzuki, gwaah gwaah?

31--- Spot on. Currently, AGI in excess of $65,000 (for individuals) eliminates the student loan interest deduction, which itself is capped at a measily $2500.

Won't the market resolve this problem pretty quickly? Everyone's looking at supply and demand of law schools, but how about the supply and demand of private student loans? As far as I can tell, it's pretty much impossible to get private loans for education. And the faster the grads start defaulting, the drier that spigot gets. The idiots who think starting law school next year is a good idea should be saved from themselves by an inability to finance it.

23 -- I think you meant to say NYU to 190k.

Sharia Law is the way to go

31 - higher income owners who are currently not able to take the deduction would just use the deduction to pay back more of their loans (or put it in a savings account). this wouldn't really create any economic growth. the theory is that poor people are more likely to spend it, which is why certain other handouts like food stamps and unemployment benefits get the gov't a larger return on a dollar for dollar basis

Good news. We need to reach a equilibrium where the less committed, wishy-washy law students are ones whose parents or grandparents pay the tab; not middle class liberal arts majors who don't know what to do with their lives. Financial aid and scholarships should be used sparingly for those students that demonstrate T14 potential. Less attorneys means better attorneys. Less attorneys means better jobs.

It is the "loans for everyone" mentality that upset this natural equilibrium.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE LAW SCHOOLS, THEY ARE JUST MEETING THE DEMAND CAUSED BY APPLICANTS. THE APPLICANTS ARE THE PROBLEM, AND THEY ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO PAY MORE.

UNTIL POTENTIAL APPLICANTS REALIZE THAT LAW SCHOOL IS A DEAD-END, THEY WILL KEEP APPLYING. UNREALISTICALLY ROSY CAREER PLACEMENT STASTICS ARE THE BIGGEST PART OF PROBLEM, AND FRANKLY, THEY SOMETIMES BORDER ON FRAUD.

>>You want lawyers to do more for public service? Why don't you consider doing something to stop making lawyers indentured servants to their debts? Asking lawyers to spend more time doing low income work at the same time that they're paying more than ever to go to law school is hypocritical and insulting. <<

Hypocritical and insulting is right. No one goes to law school and pays the high tuition to get funneled into low-paying or non-paying public service jobs.

A few years ago, U of Iowa law school started some BS Civic Engagement program, the intent of which was to direct tuition paying students into work that focused on community involvement. In reality, it was/is nothing more than another permutation on the law school scam.

Like any of these programs, this Civic Engagement BS was nothing more than a way to brain wash people into believing that they should be paying money for a degree that would then set them up in jobs were they worked for free. Yet, the program requires the involvement administrators and professors who continue to make six figure salaries off the backs of the naive, uninformed students who are being told that they should really be human sacrifices for the public good.

Iowa is a state law school that continues to raise tuition but continues to see fewer and fewer of its graduates actually obtaining employment in the legal profession. It's a scandal that these schools continue to justify paying high salaries to do-nothing administrators and faculty members while more and more of their students end up in penury.

>>You want lawyers to do more for public service? Why don't you consider doing something to stop making lawyers indentured servants to their debts? Asking lawyers to spend more time doing low income work at the same time that they're paying more than ever to go to law school is hypocritical and insulting. <<

Hypocritical and insulting is right. No one goes to law school and pays the high tuition to get funneled into low-paying or non-paying public service jobs.

A few years ago, U of Iowa law school started some BS Civic Engagement program, the intent of which was to direct tuition paying students into work that focused on community involvement. In reality, it was/is nothing more than another permutation on the law school scam.

Like any of these programs, this Civic Engagement BS was nothing more than a way to brain wash people into believing that they should be paying money for a degree that would then set them up in jobs were they worked for free. Yet, the program requires the involvement administrators and professors who continue to make six figure salaries off the backs of the naive, uninformed students who are being told that they should really be human sacrifices for the public good.

Iowa is a state law school that continues to raise tuition but continues to see fewer and fewer of its graduates actually obtaining employment in the legal profession. It's a scandal that these schools continue to justify paying high salaries to do-nothing administrators and faculty members while more and more of their students end up in penury.

"But if you are planning on using debt to finance your legal education, you might want to save yourself some time and just put your head in the guillotine right now. The quick chop will be painless compared to the tortuous years you'll otherwise spend trying to get out from under a mountain of bills while working as a contract attorney."

Step right up. Although I usually provide severance for lawyers, I can provide severance for those who think they want to be lawyers.

Another one for the the law-school-is-not-a-right crowd. If you can't bear the high risk of low/negative ROI, then don't enroll. At 22 or so, especially if you think you're bright enough for grad school, you should know how to manage your money. Why do assholes think professional students deserve to be treated like dumb, spoiled kids? Because students are doing it for Noble Purposes, in the name of Education, Personal Growth and Community Reinvestment, right? Bullshit, they thought they'd be a ten-percenter and failed. Get this whiny crap out of here, it's practically got me begging for another gay oppression thread.

26 - Nothing changed, a JD is still an undergraduate degree. Just like an MD.

"Plastics."

"No. This is not what we have been fighting for. This is a horrible bastardization of the entire student loan bailout philosophy."

"Today, the National Law Journal provides us with additional evidence that law school administrators are totally detached from the economic realities facing law school graduates:"

Elie, your writing is sophomoric today. What's going on? Is your 17-year-old cousin posting on your behalf? The one whose parents don't understand him?

Can you at least use an "Opinion" meta-tag so we know which posts are going to suck? The bifurcation would be a win-win: we'd waste less time, and your credibility would take less of a hit.

It's high time law schools used an admissions sliding scale based on parents' income, the student's expected asset take at parents death, and students trust fund size. This will help ferret out some of the undeserving.

The key is to cut student loan availability. The explosion in tuition started to occur in the 1990s when the federally guaranteed amount when up to 18,500. And not just for law schools. As other posters have pointed out, culinary schools, hair dressing schools have all jacked up to tuition, feeding at the government trough. The idea to allow more permissive borrowing was right hearted but it backfired. Its not just Harvard and Yale that are expensive, but all the TTT garbage schools got into the scam. Cut student loan guarantees to no more then 10K per year. Half the TTTs will close; the other half will lower their tuition by 50% to survive. Yeah, the elite schools will only be open to trust fund babies and those that get scholarships, but it’s a much better scenario then socking the middle class with a mountain of debt.

Can I get a refund for my Suffolk Law tuition?

Unemployed Suffolk Law Grad.

The ship be sinking...

the more exclusive this profession is the better.

6 and 40, I think your capslock key is stuck.

Public law schools are terrible. I wonder why anyone would attend one.

Wouldn't a double digit tuition increase be something between $10 and $99?

Wouldn't a double digit tuition increase be something between $10 and $99?

do you mean tortuous or torturous...?

I sue ABA.

I agree that the availability of loans (both federal and private), plus the near impossibility of discharging said loans in bankruptcy have lead to law schools (and other graduate or trade type programs) to jack up tuition costs sky high. I couldn't believe the six month computer classes my husband wanted to take cost $15,000. Thank god for relatives with reasonable loan/interest rates (since the fed only covered a third).

Until students wise up and realize how much debt they are going into, more student loan interest should be deductible from taxes.

There's no effective cap on mortgage interest deduction nor should there be on student loan interest deductions. Its counter productive to create lifelong debtors in their early 20s.

Honda tells consumers that their Honda Civic does 70 miles to the gallon on the highway, and advertises as such on their websites and glossy car brochures, in order to get consumers to buy their cars.

In fact it only does 40 miles per gallon, and most people know this.

Result? Huge consumer class action against Honda, huge attorneys fees for plaintiffs' firm and refunds for all Honda owners in certified class.

Law schools lie and mislead about their employment and salary stats on website and glossy brochure to induce purchase of law degree....nothing.

WRITING IN ALL CAPS does little more than make youre post very annoying to read.

Tortuga is an island in the Caribbean.

Elie,

Please note that UVA does NOT get ANY public money. It is innacurate to say it works with "heavy reliance on tuition, endowments and donations" -- that is it.. It ONLY works with those things. There is no public money. To say or imply it does is the same thing as saying Harvard Law or NYU gets state funds.

"Are these law school administrators suffering from a dissociative psychotic breakdown?"

Elie fails. His writing reminds me of Sarah Palin's speaking - also a fail.

50, can I borrow your resume?

Unemployed Northeastern graduate

ALLL CAPPSSS

The law school/lender racket is out of control. When is the bar going to step up to the plate and put and end to it?

As things stand now, the system encourages hapless college students to prepare themselves for nothing but going to law school, and then holds out false hope for a fabulous career in law, when, for most law grads in the U.S., there is nothing but struggle and disappointment.

Why doesn't the educational system level with its students and warn them of this?

Who wants to tickle my ballsack and enjoy a refreshing Fresca?

A law school degree is an investment. The entire cost of the education should be fully tax deductible just like an investment in a piece of equipment or machinery for a business. The tax code should provide an appropriate amortization schedule. The current student loan interest deduction is pathetic. The tax code subsidizes many investments, including residential and commercial real estate and municipal debt. Student loans are unfairly dismissed by the tax code. The change we can believe in lies in the hands of Congress.

What about us poor white trash? How are we going to go anywhere on scholarship but Hamline?

This article is really misleading. Michigan's tuition is already sky-high, which is why its increase is a smaller percentage than other public schools that had attempted to keep tuition lower before this latest round of cuts. Even after the hikes, Berkeley will still be cheaper than Michigan.

When I graduated from Illinois 5 years ago my tuition was about $13 grand a year. I was in-state. Now it is $30 grand. I think paying $30 grand a year is a really, really bad investment, and I think the tuition is at least twice as much as it should be. Educators are highly overpaid.

What can we do for now? Don't give a single cent to your law school after you graduate. Maybe after their alumni donations dry up they will realize how alienated the students are. Or maybe they will just increase tuition more.

I think you meant "the kind of crap Louis XIV used to pull," although Louis XVI may have performed similar acts given the reputation of the French Monarchy at the time.

11: I like your plan. The school has way too much say over whether a grad is employed. Sorry, but contract work doing doc review should not be calculated as being on the same level as a full-time legal job with benefits. Yes, it's a paycheck, but that's about it.

70, you nailed it.

But I would take it a few steps further:

1) All amounts paid toward student loan principal should be tax deductible;

2) All amounts paid toward student loan interest should be available as a tax credit ; and

3) If employed, student loan payments should be made from one's pre-tax paycheck (as with health insurance, flex spending, transit/parking).

Note that the above should not be subject to income caps or "phase-outs." Rather, they should be subject to limitations based on the amount of debt (e.g., a new lawyer with $150k + debt and a $160k salary should not be subject to limitations, whereas one making $250k with under, say, $30k in debt, should be, at least with regard to credits).

Who would be against any of the above? * Not the firms, as it would lessen the pressure on them to keep raising salaries. * Not the schools - they could keep raising their already absurdly high tuitions (and what cloistered professor would right an unread book against the above ideas...they'r in his or her interest). * Not the lenders - the rate of defaults would go down dramatically. * Not liberal polititians - who claim to care about "education" and class advancement. * Not conservative politicians - as this a tax reduction that involves, as others have noted, an investment. * Lastly, not the economy - into which borrowers would input more disposable income with the money saved.

Hey ABA - rather than spending millions on marketing attempts to get me to renew, why not take up this cause?

So far there have been some slippery slopes (70) and some excellent paragraph structuring (77) but not much else. The reality is that people with law degrees have, on average, much higher incomes than people without law degrees (or other graduate degrees). Why *should* you credit or a deduction for this? If you are a lower income earning law degree recipient you do get a tax credit, so you're saying that wealthy lawyers should get a credit too. That doesn't make sense.