Last month, the Education Department decided to freeze rules put in place by the Obama Administration that were meant to erase the student loan debts of students who had been defrauded by sketchy colleges. The rules were supposed to take effect on July 1.

But in May, a California association of for-profit schools filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the new rules. Citing the lawsuit, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos put the rules on hold. Now 18 states and the District of Columbia are suing DeVos and the department. Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general who led the states’ effort, said:

Since day one, Secretary DeVos has sided with for-profit school executives against students and families drowning in unaffordable student loans. Her decision to cancel vital protections for students and taxpayers is a betrayal of her office’s responsibility and a violation of federal law.

DeVos called the so-called borrower defense rules “muddled” and “unfair to students.” But on Thursday, two students who have borrowed money for studies sued the Education Department over the same issue. They had both attended the for-profit New England Institute of Art in Massachusetts, which was the target of a federal lawsuit in 2015.

MA is challenging Betsy DeVos’s illegal attempt to protect fly-by-night schools that cheat students & bury them in mountains of debt.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 6, 2017

There is already a federal law in place that allows students to apply for loan forgiveness if they think they have been a victim of fraud, but the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule would facilitate and streamline the process. It was created when a massive number of students applied after some major for-profit education companies were shut down or filed for bankruptcy a few years ago.

More than 15,000 claims were filed after the Corinthian Colleges collapse alone, by students owing over $247 million. As of now, taxpayers have to foot that bill. The Obama-era regulations that DeVos froze would have required the schools that defrauded students to take responsibility. It would also forbid schools from implementing mandatory arbitration contracts that prohibit students from taking legal action against the schools.

Critics of the borrower defense rule said it’s too hard on individual schools. The association that filed the lawsuit in May, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, said that the rule “threatens the existence” of some of the private schools.

But these schools deceived students by exaggerating job placement statistics; in one case, a school claimed that 100 percent of its students found a job in their field after graduating. The real number was 0 percent, the Education Department found in 2015. Other times, the schools closed unexpectedly and left the students without degrees but with massive debt.

The students that filed a lawsuit on Thursday said they already applied to have their loans written off under the older procedures. But at this point their cases have been pending for two years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eighteen States Sue Betsy DeVos for Blocking Student Loan Protection Rules appeared first on Law Street.

It’s absolutely no secret that college is incredibly expensive. One of the biggest complaints about college costs is how exorbitant the prices of textbooks have become. But, if Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Angus King (I-Maine) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) get their way, that will be changing soon. The three legislators just introduced a bill, the Affordable College Textbook Act, that will make some online textbooks free and ultimately help to cut textbook costs for college students.

An average student in 2013 spent roughly $1200 on books per year, or up to $1250 if just private universities are taken into account. The prices of textbooks have skyrocketed in recent years–increasing an average of 82 percent in the last 10 years. There was an 812 percent price jump between 1978-2013. Experts attribute the shocking jump in prices to a lack of competition in the market, but these high costs are certainly detrimental to students. Roughly 70 percent of students have foregone certain textbooks in an attempt to save money, even if they realize that doing so may affect their academic success. It makes a lot of sense–if you’re desperate to save money, it’s a lot easier to forgo textbooks than housing or food.

The bill was introduced last week and, if successful, will provide grants to institutions of higher education. Those institutions will then work on programs for “open” textbooks–essentially textbooks that are online and freely accessible to students. Franken explained why this program would make sense based on his experience in Minnesota, stating:

At The University of Minnesota they’ve started a program of open sourced textbooks and that is basically paying professors there to write textbooks and put them online and so that professors and teachers can use and students can use that material instead of a $150 textbook.

Durbin also explained his motivations, citing similar success in Illinois:

As I said, we did this at the University of Illinois. Now there are certain rules of the game. If you’re going to have an open text book, it really has to be open, available to everyone, for the public, and what were finding is there’s a lot of good response to it and I think its catching on.

This, overall, is a smart suggestion that alleviates a real problem for students. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the House by Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colorado). But, it has a very long way to go before it becomes anywhere near a viable piece of legislation, and given the current Congressional climate, probably doesn’t have a good shot of being enacted. That being said, as more pressure is exerted on our government to address the rising costs of college expenses, these kind of common sense and intelligent proposals will become key. While the bill may not make it through this time, be on the lookout for similar proposals at the state and federal level moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Senate Take Action to Combat Rising Textbook Costs? appeared first on Law Street.

Traditionally, other than poorly-veiled shots at press events, political opponents had to wait until debates in order to discuss the important issues directly. But that seems to be changing–social media tools make it way easier for candidates to directly interact with each other. Case in point, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Republican contender Jeb Bush directly engaged in an argument via Twitter this Monday about Clinton’s plan to make education more affordable.

Here are the tweets from Bush and Clinton, in sequential order:

Hillary started with a pretty basic tweet promoting her plan to take on student debt.

Cost won't be a barrier to an education. Debt won't hold you back. Read Hillary's plan: http://t.co/A4pWb3fOf4 pic.twitter.com/KVyr8SlSVn

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Then, Bush fired back, attacking Obama’s approach to college debt and suggesting that Hillary will be the same.

@HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/m6LAHYCLok

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 10, 2015

Then, Clinton got personal and brought up Bush’s less-than-stellar record on education affordability when he was the governor of Florida.

.@JebBush Fixed it for you. pic.twitter.com/d4q9EWpXCA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Finally, Bush fired back with a “redesign” of Clinton’s much-mocked arrow logo, but moved the conversation from student debt to taxes.

.@HillaryClinton fixed your logo for you. pic.twitter.com/141nXHQe4Z

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 11, 2015

The back-and-forth got pretty nasty relatively quickly. While there’s no guarantee that it was Clinton or Bush behind these tweets, and not members of their respective staffs, the fact that both official accounts were willing to play ball is pretty indicative of the important role that social media will have in this race. Currently, Clinton has roughly four million Twitter followers, Bush’s campaign clocks in at just over 250,000. Both are almost certainly looking to grow those followings, particularly as surprise GOP frontrunner Donald Trump approaches the four million followers mark himself.

So, why are our politicians suddenly getting into Twitter spats a la Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift or Drake and Meek Mill? It’s pretty simple–it’s tantamount to free advertising. Although it’s estimated that one billion dollars will be spent on online campaigning in 2016, attracting followers and conversation via silly photoshop jabs is pretty cheap. Given how expensive it is to run a campaign, attracting free press–after all, we’re all writing about the Bush/Clinton Twitter spat now–is a smart idea.

Bush and Clintons’ Twitter back-and-forth also falls directly in line with the kind of animosity that these two candidates have developed. For example, when both candidates appeared at the Urban League Conference on July 31, Clinton spoke first and took the opportunity to slam Bush’s “Right to Rise” campaign slogan, stating:

I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare. People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care. They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.

Bush’s camp responded to Clinton’s comments by accusing her of playing politics–a time-old jab that roughly translates to “the other candidate said something mean.” 

Bush hasn’t missed his opportunity to push back, however. Last night, Bush purported that current problems in Iraq stem from the actions of the Obama administration–which Clinton served under as Secretary of State. Bush said Obama and Clinton were too eager to pull troops out of Iraq and stated:

So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.

Given Clinton’s dominance in the Democratic polls, and Bush’s strong second place standing on the Republican side, it makes sense they’re starting to snipe at each other. Doing so over social media might add a new facet to those interactions, but as this promises to be an incredibly long campaign, we can expect to see shade thrown from all sorts of directions–in person and over social media alike.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Same Fight, Better Photoshop: Bush and Clinton Take to Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

For a while, it seemed like for-profit colleges were the newest, hottest frontier in higher education. But with current student debt problems, and many revelations about some of the predatory practices of for-profit colleges, the trend appears to have officially passed. Arguably the most well-known for-profit institution of higher learning–The University of Phoenix–may be the latest to find itself in hot water.

Late last week the parent company of the University of Phoenix, Apollo Education Group, released information that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating the company. The investigation is attempting to determine if the University of Phoenix ran deceptive or unfair business practices. The investigation is particularly focused on its recruitment of veterans. The accusations claim that the company has left veterans with high levels of debt after collecting hundreds of millions in GI Bill money. It’s not just the GI Bill money that the University of Phoenix has collected, however, according to financial records the company has collected over $488 million in fees and tuition from veterans’ own money for its online programs, and additional sums at various physical locations.

The University of Phoenix has been declining slowly for a little while now. Five years ago, the school reported almost half a million students. That number has been essentially halved since then. In 2012, the University of Phoenix was forced to close 115 of its campuses. In addition, revenue has been declining, and there have been many accusations levied against the company in regards to the way that it treats its students and potential recruits.

The controversy over the University of Phoenix is borne out of concerns that the school required participants to take out expensive loans, which could have been fine had those participants had the ability to pay back those loans after they graduated. However, the education provided at the University of Phoenix doesn’t necessarily lead to employment, the credits usually don’t transfer to other schools, and the degrees aren’t always recognized by employers.

In order to cooperate with the investigation, as Apollo Education Group promised in its statement, the company will have to provide the federal investigators with documents such as financial information, marketing, billing, debt collection, accreditation, and military recruitment practices.

This investigation into the University of Phoenix is consistent with a theme of increased scrutiny on for-profit schools, many of which are struggling in the now seemingly turbulent educational environment. Last month, the Obama Administration began cracking down on for-profit schools. A new rule that took effect in July from the Department of Education is the “gainful employment rule” which “requires colleges to track their graduates’ performance in the workforce and eventually will cut off funding for career training programs that fall short.”

Equal opportunities for education are essential, but not if they hurt students more than they help. There’s now significant suspicion that many for-profit institutions fall into the latter camp–University of Phoenix may just be the latest to get in trouble as a result.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Phoenix Under FTC Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

Beaches, sun, internships, and vacations; these are some of the highlights associated with Summer. That’s not the case though for thousands of 19 and 20 year olds frantically preparing for arguably one of the most overrated exams looming in the second week of June: the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). By now, every college sophomore and junior has probably heard that getting into law school  is “easier” than ever due to the decline in the applicant pool. Is it really though? Moreover, what does this notion entail once graduating seniors actually commit to their respective law schools? It seems that what used to be a competitive challenge for those truly passionate about law and policy has become an option for the thousands of students wanting to avoid “funemployment” and who are unsure of their post-graduation plans.

Millennials are being victimized by the fallacy that a law degree from a middle-top tier institution will provide stable employment upon graduation. Many refer to the phenomenon of the smallest applicant pool in 30 years as a “buyers market,”  wherein students are sold the idea that applying to law school now is a good idea because they will have a higher chance of attending a top Law School, thus potentially being scouted by a top law firm and earning a six-figure starting salary. Although this sounds very appealing, the “buyers market” leaves out a minor detail–law firms are placing little emphasis on the small applicant pools given the excess law graduates from years past and job demand finally stabilizing.  

Last year saw the smallest class of incoming law students at 38,000–a 37 percent decline from 2010. There is no denying that the smaller applicant pool and decreased percentage of high-test scorers contributes to the evidence that admission into tougher law schools is in fact a more viable option.  Furthermore, these numbers indeed provide an incentive for thousands of students who, prior to the applicant decline, would never have considered taking the LSAT. The formerly serious and competitive reputation of the LSAT, wherein students would prepare months in advance for the arduous five-hour assessment, has become arguably as common as taking the SAT.  The increase in under-prepared students taking the exam is shown by studies conducted on the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) data. Statistics disclose that the number of applicants with higher LSAT scores (above 170) has declined exponentially more than the number of applicants with lower scores, advocating that some students with high LSAT scores do not apply to law school at all while students with lower scores continue to apply.

Moreover, statistics demonstrate that companies are not hiring more lawyers than they were in 2010. Top law firms not only continue to scout and favor aspiring attorneys from top-ten schools, but now have the luxury of choosing from a much wider pool of applicants than just students who have just graduated.

According to the American Bar Association,  in 2013 only 57 percent of all law school graduates found full-time work, meaning the job lasted one year or more and was either a clerkship or mandated bar passage. It is important to note that 4,714 of the jobs reported were in fields that technically did not require law degrees, but rather employers preferred to hire Juris Doctorates (i.e. congressional staffers, labor organizers, or NGO workers etc). An additional 1,724 jobs were completely unrelated to law.

The employment numbers are not expected to differ much for the Class of 2016. There are 36,000 students predicted to graduate in 2016, as opposed to 46,776 in 2013. The ABA further projects that there will be 19,650 jobs available for those graduates. While these numbers convey that fewer people will graduate unemployed, the previously mentioned values do not take into account individual student qualifications and readiness, which prominent law firms rely heavily on before offering employment.

So while at face value the numerical indicators provide an optimistic view for undergraduate students banking on attending a higher-ranked law school, confounding variables such as fierce competition among peers and lack of preparedness factor into the discussion. As Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent puts it:

Most people should not attend law school. Specifically, you shouldn’t attend law school unless: a) you have an overwhelming compulsion to actually become a lawyer and b) you understand exactly what becoming a lawyer entails.

Although not the worst time to apply to law school, do your homework. Completely disregarding the average $122,158 debt law students graduate with–because that is an entirely different topic on its own–undergraduates who are not 100 percent convinced about law and policy might want to think twice about applying to law school. What momentarily may seem like a fantastic educational opportunity to attend a slightly better law school than what would’ve been the case a few years ago could end up being a curse in disguise; a detrimental and slipshod attempt at a legal career.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Sure Now’s a Good Time to Go to Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college costs have gone up. Way up. Bloomberg estimated that the cost of college had gone up 1,120 percent since 1978. While inflation over time is obviously normal, that’s a huge jump. Compare it to the fact that over the same time period, the price of food has only risen 244 percent. Going to college now requires that many students take out loans, and then struggle to pay those loans off for years to come. President Obama and other politicians have been saying that something needs to be done for a while, and he recently floated a plan to help ease college costs for some students: two years of free community college for students who are willing to work for it.

Obama gave a speech at Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee about his new plan. At its core, it’s a simple enough idea. Students who maintain a GPA over 2.5, attend at least half time, and make steady progress toward completing their degree will be eligible for the tuition elimination. The schools are going to be held to high standards as well:

Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers.

The reasoning behind providing those first two years free is to train students for more high-skilled jobs. While our unemployment numbers are looking better than they have in years–under six percent as of December 2014–there are still plenty of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Despite this nearly five million jobs remain unfilled in areas that require specialized training, such as healthcare work or technology. This plan will attempt to fill that gap by providing workers with skills that can be used in those jobs. As jobs that require a college degree increase–by 2020 it’s estimated that 33 percent of all job openings will require post-high school education–it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for people to get those degrees.

It’s estimated that this will cost about $3,800 per student, and that nine million students will take advantage of the program. That all adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, roughly $60 billion over ten years, which begs the question: how is the Federal government going to pay for this all? The details don’t appear to be fully formed yet, but advocates argue that it’s an investment in the economy. Until our work force is at its most productive, we’re not going to be able to get much done.

Despite the fact that this plan is more bipartisan than most undertaken by the government these days–Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker attended the speech in Tennessee–there are plenty of lawmakers who disagree with the plan. Detractors point to the high price tag as an unnecessary expense. There are also concerns that community colleges aren’t necessarily that successful–only 30 percent of students entering community college graduate within three years.

While there are both positives and negatives to the plan, it’s an early step of what needs to be a much larger solution to the huge problem of college costs and student debt as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Tuition Elimination Plan Aims to Fill Skilled Jobs Mismatch appeared first on Law Street.

Charleston Law School has had a tough few years. It was established in 2003–right when that big law school boom was starting– and its first class graduated in 2007. The school began as a way to fill a gap in legal education that existed in Charleston; despite the fact that it’s the second largest city in South Carolina, there was not a law school there when Charleston Law began operating.

In 2013, the school began dealing with a company called InfiLaw, which eventually purchased the school pending approval by the American Bar Association (ABA) and South Carolina’s commission on higher education.

InfiLaw is part of Sterling Enterprises, a private equity company from Chicago, and it operates for-profit law schools. Currently there are three in InfiLaw’s collection–Florida Coastal School of Law, Arizona Summit Law School, and the Charlotte School of Law. Charleston Law would be the fourth. The company’s reputation within the law school field isn’t particularly stellar. There are concerns that InfiLaw is a scam, and predatory–after all, it takes students who can’t get into other law schools, puts them into massive debt, and then those students have a very difficult time finding jobs that can pay off said debt. In an in-depth piece on for-profit law schools that focused heavily on InfiLaw, the Atlantic attempted to pinpoint the company’s motivation:

A Florida Coastal faculty member who is familiar with the business strategies of private-equity firms told me that, in his view, the entire InfiLaw venture was quite possibly based on a very-short-term investment perspective: the idea was to make as much money as the company could as fast as possible, and then dump the whole operation onto someone else when managing it became less profitable.

Regardless of whether or not those are actually InfiLaw’s practices, actually taking over Charleston Law could lead to serious changes at the school.

That’s where this all gets very, very messy. Those two entities that have to approve the sale–the ABA, and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE)–have a few different moving parts. It’s a confusing mess, but essentially what’s happened is that one committee of the ABA, the accreditation committee, has approved the sale; however, another part that needs to give its approval, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, has deferred making a decision. They’re waiting on the CHE, who have their own set of problems with which to contend.

Now CHE is caught in the middle. One of Charleston Law’s founders, a man named Ed Westbrook, doesn’t want the school sold to InfiLaw. He’s in the minority, as the other two founders want to see it go to InfiLaw. Westbrook claims that he can successfully operate it as a non-profit, without taking any money from the state. He’s made vague statements about using his own money to do so. Now, both Westbrook and his lawyers, and InfiLaw and its lawyers are reaching out to the CHE with conflicting proposals and information. Westbrook’s optimism is admirable, I guess, but Charleston Law as it stands seems a bit like a sinking ship. For example, the school’s new President, Maryann Jones stepped down in November. She lasted in the job for a grand total of eight days. Her reasoning was described in an email she sent when she resigned:

The level of vitriol, with all sides making me a lightning rod for an unfortunate situation that was not of my making, makes this truly a situation that I am unwilling at this stage of my life to undertake.

Back to the CHE approval though, which appears to be the lynchpin to this deal. Want to be even more confused? There are 15 seats on the CHE. Four are vacant, and eight are being held by people whose terms have technically expired. Governor Nicki Haley is trying to fill those seats–but that would be in January at the earliest.

So, will InfiLaw succeed in its takeover of the Charleston School of Law? I have absolutely no clue. This tangled web of players, committees, and arguments is a mess–perhaps symbolic of the messy relationship between the ABA, for-profit law schools, and students. Whatever happens, it’s now in the CHE’s hands…and I for one do not envy them.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post InfiLaw’s Attempt to Purchase Charleston Law is a Giant Mess appeared first on Law Street.

Monday again, huh? It’s rough. I’m not even going to try to dispute that. Ease into the work week with a recap of last week’s top stories from Law Street. Blogger Hannah Kaye took the number one spot with an analytical look at the the myth of “stranger danger” through the lens of the disturbing case of Hannah Graham in Virginia; writer Hannah Winsten took it to the people behind #GamerGate and violence against women to earn the number two spot; and I wrote about Starbucks’ upcoming competition to win free coffee for 30 years. ICYMI, check out the top three stories from last week.

#1 The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her. Read full article here.

#2 GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

How many of you are big video game players? Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom. But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right? Read full article here.

#3 Starbucks for Life Campaign: You’re Welcome Law Students

If there are two things common to basically every law student ever, it’s this: 1. You’re exhausted in every possible way imaginable and subsisting on caffeine; and, 2. There’s no point in even thinking about the 30 years it’s going to take you to pay off your student debt. Lucky for (a handful of) you, Starbucks announced its new “Starbucks for Life” campaign. Read full article here.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s pretty well known at this point that the law school industry is struggling. With overall enrollment down, many schools are taking drastic measures to make sure that they keep their numbers up. Some schools are doing this by lowering prices, and others are creating innovative new programs to attract students. And then you have the American University Washington College of Law, which is offering students a scholarship…and then making them pay if they don’t follow through on the terms of the scholarship.

American Law offers a scholarship called the Public Interest/Public Service Scholarship. The students who receive it are colloquially referred to as PIPS Scholars. The PIPS scholarship covers the full price of tuition and requires certain involvement in public service-based events and activities in order to remain in the program. For example, PIPS Scholars participate in the school’s Pro Bono Honors Pledge Program, and organize a Public Service Day for younger students. There are also academic standards that must be maintained. Overall, the program seems pretty rigorous, but also valuable, given that full-cost law school scholarships are pretty hard to come by.

But there’s apparently a catch, and that’s this stipulation:

Scholars will be expected to maintain matriculation at the Washington College of Law until graduation. Absent compelling circumstances, a scholar who chooses to withdraw or transfer from the law school will be required to pay back the full amount of tuition within 30 days of the end of the last semester of enrollment plus any other WCL grants or scholarships. As a condition of receiving the scholarship, incoming PIPS Scholars will be asked to sign a form indicating their understanding and acceptance of the foregoing terms and conditions of the award.

So if a PIPS Scholar doesn’t stay at American for all three years of legal education, she owes American Law repayment of that free tuition? American Law puts its current full-time tuition at $49,542.

As Paul Campos points out, this policy has undergone some changes over the years. Originally when the program was created in 2001, there did not appear to be any sort of repayment requirements. Between 2006 – 2014, PIPS Scholars who dropped out or transferred could convert their debt to American Law into a loan and pay it back that way. Now, it appears that students who don’t complete the requisite three years must pay back the full amount in 30 days.

It’s a pretty tough bargain that American Law is driving with this scholarship. To be fair, the students who enter this program do accept the terms and conditions, and apparently sign some sort of contract. I hope that those students are giving that document a good read-over, but given that they are entering law school on a full ride, it’s probably pretty safe to assume they are indeed being thorough. Obviously, a student who thinks he might want to transfer, or a student who isn’t 100 percent sure that law school is the right path should not accept this scholarship.

I do worry, though, about students who have to drop out of school for unforeseen reasons — health, family emergency, personal crises, and the like. Sometimes those things just happen, and the fact that American Law will penalize students for those reasons is pretty tough. Although the scholarship does say that the price will be charged “absent compelling circumstances,” there doesn’t appear to be a definition in the scholarship requirements of what compelling circumstances might be. Is it decided on an ad-hoc basis, or does American Law list some examples of what is a good enough reason to drop out? The potentially arbitrary nature of this sentence is deeply concerning.

I think it’s also important to note that American Law must know that if a student drops out, he’s probably not going to do a great job of paying the school back. Any attempts to reclaim the money, especially as much money as American Law charges a year, is probably going to drive that student into bankruptcy. Instead, this serves as more of an insurance policy than anything else — the threat of America Law’s possible actions are pretty much enough to keep students from transferring or otherwise leaving.

It’s an interesting move, American Law. In a environment where law schools are trying new strategies to stay ahead of the pack, let’s see how hostage-taking in the form of a “scholarship” works for you.

—-

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Truthout.org via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American University College of Law and Its Hostage Scholarship appeared first on Law Street.

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 40 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

What is a student loan?

A student loan is pretty self-explanatory. It is a type of loan specifically meant to pay for university tuition and all other costs associated with going to college. This can include books, computers, and housing. Student loans differ greatly from other types of loans. For example, federal student loans do not have to be paid back until graduation. People obtain student loans by filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a form that gives students access to all sorts of financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Work Study.

Who provides these student loans?

While some students obtain these loans from private banks, many of them obtain loans from the federal government. Federal loans are all backed and funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), which means that the interest rate is often lower than those provided by a private bank.

What are some problems with the student loan system?

The big problem is that so many students need them. Twelve million students each year, 60 percent of all college students, pay some portion of their tuition with student loans. This is partly because college is more expensive than it used to be. Over the last 24 years, the average cost of in-state public college education rose by $5,470. And that’s just in-state public school. Tuition at some private institutions is staggering.

This contrast illustrates it best: the overall consumer price index has risen 115 percent since 1985. How high has the college education inflation rate risen? Nearly 500 percent. It’s no wonder that more Americans than ever have student loan debt. Here’s President Barack Obama decrying skyrocketing tuition:

Interest rates used to be a problem. In previous years, the interest rate on student loans would be set permanently by Congress. However, these rates were set up so that, unless Congress reauthorized them, they would double. There was a fight to keep these rates low in 2012 and 2013. That’s why this weird clip from Late Night With Jimmy Fallon with Obama exists:

Congress quickly realized that going through this battle every year was not good for anyone. That’s why they passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This law tied student loans to the 10-year Treasury note and locked in individual rates for life. This means that, while your own rate will never rise, the rates of future students will raise independent of action from Congress.

The bigger problem is that student loans have saddled 37 million graduates with serious debt. It takes years, sometimes decades, to pay off these loans. Worse, these debts have been steadily rising over the past few decades.

Why does it take so long to pay back student loans?

Simply put, graduates just aren’t very good at paying these loans back. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of borrowers are late on their payments. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 35 percent of American student loan borrowers were delinquent on payments in the third quarter of 2012. This local news broadcast called the situation an “economic crisis.”

Graduating students are also struggling to pay back these loans because they are entering an awful job market. For example, 6.7 percent of students who graduated in 2008 were still unemployed in 2012. How are these young people expected to start paying down this debt when they have little or no income?

Many graduates also do not know how to correctly pay these loans back. This advice column from The New York Times shows just how complicated paying back student loans can be.

If so many graduates cannot quickly pay off their debts, they may be left out of certain opportunities, like buying a house. Student loan debt is a drag on the economy.

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

Not much. Some politicians are attempting to reform the system to help graduates (we’ll get to that later), but there are only a few ways the government can currently help.

Loan consolidation is one such option. This is when the government lets you combine all of your loans into one. Graduates who are having trouble paying off multiple loans consider this option so that they can only have one manageable monthly payment. There are also some instances in which debt holders can defer their payments on principle and interest. Find out if your student loan payments can be deferred here.

Private companies exist that offer to help lower monthly payments, but these companies have recently come under fire from federal and state regulators for using predatory practices and charging graduates hefty upfront fees for services that the DOE offers for free. Illinois has sued some of these companies and more states are likely to follow.

In the past, those looking for forgiveness of their debt were out luck. Even today, graduates who want an immediate forgiveness of their debts will have trouble doing so. This table shows just how hard it is to get student loan debt forgiven. Even bankruptcy does not always result in a forgiveness of student debt. However, action taken by President Obama made forgiveness a little easier. Read on to the next section to find out how.

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

Obama has used his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the Pay As You Earn program. Pay As You Earn is a federal program that allows borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income and forgives remaining debt after 20 years. This program was previously only available to new students. Obama expanded the program to a majority of loan holders, who can begin to take advantage of it in 2015.

Obama also supports the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill, introduced this May by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would allow those with outstanding debt to refinance their loans based on newer and lower interest rates.

What does Congress think about these reforms?

As noted in the last section, Democrats are on board with Warren’s plan. Every single Democratic Senator voted for the bill when it was brought to the Senate floor. This is most likely because it is a targeted demographic of the Democratic Party’s base — young adults — and that it is paid for by a tax that that has been a part of their platform for years.

Republicans in Congress are not a fan of Warren’s bill, mainly because it would be funded by the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama before the 2012 election, is a plan to tax millionaires so that they are not paying a lower share of their wealth in taxes compared to middle-class Americans. Even Senate Republicans, often seen as more moderate than House Republicans, rejected the bill, calling it a “political stunt.” Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a possible 2016 candidate, has introduced a bill that looks nearly identical to the Pay As You Earn program, but applies the same logic to every single student loan. It caps payments as a percentage of income and allows for debt forgiveness. However, while Pay As You Earn forgives all debt after 20 years, Rubio’s bill would only forgive that debt if it were less than $57,500. The debt would be forgiven in 30 years if it were any higher than that figure. Still, there is a lot of common ground between conservatives and Democrats. Common sense would dictate that this bill has a real chance of being passed.

Yet, as those who follow Congress know all too well, common sense rarely impacts Congressional results. The main obstacle for Rubio’s reform bill is that not all conservatives are the same. There are significant divisions in the Republican party on this issue. Many conservatives do not even believe that the federal government should be in the business of paying for young people to go to college. When asked about his vote against Warren’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that it is not Congress’ job to forgive “obligations that have been voluntarily incurred.” He also said “not everybody needs to go to Yale,” presumably arguing that students who cannot afford college should look for cheaper options instead of depending on the government. There are certainly cheaper options than Yale, such as for-profit college. McConnell believes that students should consider these less-expensive options before depending on the government.

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

There has not been much polling done on the issue of student loan reform; however, one 2013 Public Policy Polling poll shows that all Americans are unsurprisingly unified on one issue: 83 percent of all Americans want Congress to either keep rates on student loans the way they are or lower them. This poll was taken back when rates could have potentially doubled, so it does not reflect feelings toward current reform packages, but it does show that the American people are in favor of Congress acting to keep interest rates low.

Americans are much more divided when it comes to opinions on the worthiness of their own loans. A poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling shows that, by a two-to-one margin, most Americans believe that their own student loan was worth the cost. However, most would not recommend taking out student loans to finance an education and some claimed they would not have taken a loan out if they were aware of how much it would cost them in the long run.

Congress would be wise to spend time on this issue, regardless of which reform plan they support. According to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll, 57 percent of Millennials believe that student debt is a major problem. That concern is consistent across party lines. This statistic will likely keep the student loan issue on the Congressional agenda for quite some time.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: S 1241 The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

College Board: Average Net Price Over Time for Full-Time Students at Public Four-Year Institutions

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren Slams Mitch McConnell: He Wants ‘Students to Dream a Little Smaller’

U.S. News & World Report: Congress Approves Student Loan Deal

Huffington Post: How Millennials and Students Won a Massive Victory on Loan Rates

Huffington Post: Why the Student Loan Deal is Bad News for Students

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

The New York Times: A Beginner’s Guide to Repaying Student Loans

U.S. News & World Report: Obama Sidesteps Congress to Expand Student Loan Repayment Program

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Loans Burden a Generation appeared first on Law Street.

We’re having a debate here at Law Street over whether or not now is a good time to go to law school–this is Matt DeWilde’s argument against taking the leap, click here to read Brittany Alzfan’s opinion on why law school right now may be a good choice.

When it comes to the question of entering law school right now, unless you like gambling with over $100,000 on the line or you got into Harvard Law, you might want to hold your horses. Going to law school now will still most likely result in massive amounts of debt and only a small chance to get a job at a top law firm when you get out. I do believe that law school will one day be a smart choice again, but that day is at least several years down the road.

There are many reasons why now is not a good time to go to law school. For one, law school prices have started to trend downwards, but are still high across the board. You will most likely end up in massive debt, especially if you haven’t finished paying off loans you took out for your undergraduate degree. The best law schools are still going to set you back close to $150,000 and it is very hard to find a respectable school that will cost you less than $100,000. All that being said, it would be totally worth it if you could make six figures right after graduating, but you most likely won’t luck out in the job market. In fact, you will probably be happy if you can find a job that pays marginally better than one you could get with just your undergraduate degree.

Median pay out of law school is around $60,000 a year, $10,000 lower than it was in 2008. Also check out this graph from the Association for Legal Career Professionals. While it is true that there is a sizable percentage of graduates making good money–about $160,000 a year, they’re still in the minority. In fact, there was a high concentration of graduates making between $45,000-$55,000 out of law school in 2012, which is only marginally better than the $44,000 graduates averaged their first year out of undergrad.

The counterargument to these facts is that the job market has stabilized, and with a smaller law school class more students will get good jobs. But there are problems with this logic. One is that the best paying jobs are still only available to those who graduate from elite law schools, which have not had to drop class sizes to the same extent as mid-level law schools. So while it may now be less likely that you will be unemployed when you graduate, do not expect the big bucks. Also, just because the job market has stabilized now does not mean it will start improving over the next three years while you’re in school. Going to school with the assumption that the job market will improve is an incredible gamble.

While going to law school today might not be as bad as enrolling in 2009, it is still not a great option. But there are signs that we could only be a couple years away from a law school rebound. One is that law schools are starting to lower their prices.  There could very well be wide-scale tuition decreases over the next few years, meaning it would make sense to wait until those have come to fruition. As prices go down, so does the gamble.

So if your dream is to be a lawyer and you really want to go to law school, do not give up hope, but be patient. Prices should go down and the legal job market is likely to improve a bit–albeit in mainly lower paying jobs. Perhaps try to find a job as a paralegal for a few years, then go to law school. Paralegals can earn up to $50,000 out of undergrad and it’s great experience to put on law school applications. Gain work experience, and in a few years take advantage of lower priced law schools. While it may be better to apply to law school now than it was a couple years ago, it’s still a risky decision. Waiting a few years could very well improve your prospects.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]  

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Go to Law School…Yet appeared first on Law Street.

As a student considering attending law school in a couple years, I can’t help but hope that the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law is starting a trend. The law school recently announced that they were slashing their out of state tuition by over 25 percent, lowering their yearly tuition from $38,841 to $29,000 for nonresident students. There are several reasons why this might become a trend, but the main one is that law school enrollment is down and many law schools are losing money. These schools have to respond to a changing market. And the University of Arizona is doing a truly laudable job with their response.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia certainly thinks that shifts like Arizona’s will become a trend. Scalia, in his commencement address to William and Mary Law School graduates, bluntly dismissed any “law school in two years” concept.  According to Scalia, law is not a trade but a profession, and there is no way to learn all that needs to be learned in just two years. He thinks that a student must have a wide base of knowledge in the many types of law and requires three years of study. However, he also thinks that law schools are currently overvalued. The solution to Scalia, therefore, is for law schools to lower prices rather than offer two-year programs.

Scalia also has plans for how law schools will survive the loss in revenue. He thinks that there are too many law professors and that they get paid too much. Some law professors get paid twice as much as federal judges, despite a less intense workload. In Scalia’s eyes, it would be reasonable to pay law professors less and expect them to teach more.

So is Scalia right and is Arizona a part of the beginning of a trend for law school tuition decreases? It’s hard to imagine that they are not. Based on an Arizona Board of Regents report, Arizona’s law school is now 30 percent cheaper than the average cost of other law schools. Dean Marc Miller told The Arizona Daily Star that, “we’re responding to the market in changing times. It will have more students looking at us more seriously early on.” If the dean is correct, and saving over ten grand in tuition draws students to Arizona in high numbers, other schools will have to follow suit.

Arizona is not the only law school to lower its tuition recently. Roger Williams Law School, Brooklyn Law School, and Iowa Law School have all made similar moves. The cuts have ranged from 15 to 18 percent, although Arizona offered the highest cut in terms of percentage. If these schools experience an increase in applications and enrollment, all law schools, except perhaps the elite ones, will have to lower prices to compete.

As a potential law student, the two-year law degree is very tempting and if it was an option I think I would have to take it. I would imagine most law students would choose that route. It means one less year of school and saves you $30,000-$50,000. That being said, I understand Scalia’s argument and would not be disappointed if the two-year program never came to fruition, especially if costs go down. If Arizona did not reduce cost, but adopted a two year program, it would cost an out of state student $77,682. Under the new reduced cost plan, it will cost a student $87,000 for three years. That bill is still more than a hypothetical two-year program, but the overall savings might make it worth the third year, especially if it enhances your ability to be a lawyer and earn money.

The University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School is Getting Cheaper in Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that higher education comes at a cost, one that many find overwhelming and in some cases impossible to cover. There has been no shortage of news coverage on the current state of the education crisis seen here and here. With increasing publicized coverage of the rising student debt, perspective students are reconsidering their future plans at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some schools have recently recognized the problem of funding higher education and are attempting to make some reforms. Here are some highlights of what is happening in education reform today.

Free Tuition.

That is not a typo. Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam is proposing a program, called “Tennessee Promise” that covers a two year full ride to any high school graduate. The goal is to improve the current graduation rate of 32 percent to a desired 55 percent by the year 2025. Overall, this campaign is an effort to improve job qualifications and attract employers to the state. Students graduating from this two year program can choose to continue onto a four year track and enter another university as a rising junior. This program is projected to pass through the voting process, with some adjustments and a set plan to cover the costs of this education reform. Higher education experts list Florida, Oregon and Mississippi as other states considering similar reforms. College may not have to burn a hole in your pocket, with future reforms such as this one, higher education may not cost anything at all.

A One Year Law Degree That Means Something. 

Law school, many have tried it, some have prevailed and others would prefer not to continue to the bar exam. What about the individuals that decide after year one that law school is not for them? Cleveland Marshall College of Law now offers alternative option for these students and is removing some of the financial risk from attending three years of law school with a convertible new, one year masters degree in legal studies. This degree was implemented in spring 2014, making CML one of the first colleges to offer an advanced legal degree to professionals wanting to work in close proximity with the law, but not necessarily be admitted to the bar. Students who complete one year of J.D. curriculum, now have the option to accept this degree in legal studies without taking additional courses. This education reform makes law school less risky and offers a faster and less expensive alternative.

Cutting Tuition Costs and Forgetting About National Rankings.

Recently covered by my colleague, Brooklyn Law School is becoming a trailblazer in reinventing legal education. In order to increase demand and remain open, Brooklyn Law School is abandoning their attempts to rise in national rankings and cutting their tuition costs by fifteen percent. Other law schools are quickly following this trend such as the University of Iowa College of Law and University of La Verne College of Law. These law schools are taking the hint that not everyone can afford ridiculously expensive tuition and with a loss of students comes the closure of a school.

An International Effort. 

The obstacles that are preventing students from reaching their educational goals and receiving a college degree are becoming recognized not only in the United States but around the globe. Countries including Ireland, China, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and the United States are coming together on April 9th and 10th to discuss higher education reform at the Galileo Summit. This international summit is occurring in Essex, New York to spark a discussion how to expand college access. It is taking some of the most powerful countries to discuss the policy, funding, and proposed graduation rates of the future.

Graduating college is a hard enough task on its own and the financial burden is an unnecessary restriction. The United States as well as countries around the world are finally realizing that education is not affordable to everyone, when it really needs to be to maintain the global economy. An educated society is beneficial to all countries and if education is a prerequisite for the workforce, it has to be more easily attainable.

[The Huffington Post] [DNJ] [The New York Times] [Cleveland State]

—

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Education Reform Relieves Students’ Debts and Doubts appeared first on Law Street.

I spent much of this past holiday season mulling over a sob story about a JD who got screwed by the law school racket. Though the media landscape of the past several years is strewn with such wreckage, this particular tale of woe stood out for me. For one thing, the victim went to an unspecified top-20-ranked law school and yet is still struggling on a $45,000-a-year salary, living with his parents and staring almost $200,000 of debt in the face. For another thing, he met with this fate after spending two years working at “miserable small law firms” for one abusive, larcenous boss and for another who made him work for nothing for 3 months, for a paltry $1,000/month for the next 3 months, and for a measly $2,000/month for another 3 months after that.

Though this poor man ended the article on a self-blaming note — “At the end of the day, it’s my own fault for being a sucker” — the gist of the piece is that his dire straits are really his law school’s fault. The school fed him a slew of misleading, half-true statistics about his post-graduation employment prospects, never informed him about the demoralizing nature of much legal practice work or the non-transferability of legal skills in the job market, etc. The tireless law school detractor Elie Mystal at Above the Law agrees: “If we’re going to blame the guy for something, blame him for believing the hucksters who were selling him on legal education. It’s fine if you want to look down on the fool who buys the snake-oil thinking that it will cure cancer, just don’t forget that the real culprit here is the snake-oil salesman.”

As an underemployed 28-year-old who also wonders whether law school was the right choice for him, I sympathize with my compatriot’s quandary. Yet I must confess that I’ve never felt that kind of resentment toward my law school, and never felt as if anyone were to blame but myself for the challenges I’ve faced in the job market. More broadly speaking, I’ve never joined wholeheartedly in the chorus of condemnation being directed at the legal academy.

Admittedly, it may be because I haven’t yet suffered quite the same misfortune as the subject of the article. My status as an international student (I hail from Montreal, Canada) slammed the federal student loan door shut in my face when I applied. While this had the obviously detrimental effect of saddling me (oh, hell, who am I kidding — on my mother, really) with a vastly heavier up-front tuition burden, it also required me to rely on my school for its modest financial aid grants and loans. As a result, I’m facing maybe a third of the student loan debt that the average law school graduate has to shoulder.

Also, my extracurricular activities and my post-2L summer internship plugged me into a network of public-interest and public policy organizations and foundations inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway. Those connections have so far netted me two back-to-back legal internships with nonprofits in the nation’s capital that have kept me employed since I graduated last May. I obtained the first position through an internship-stipend program that paid me $10 an hour during the summer — $1,600 a month. Last fall, I did a stint at a prominent D.C. think tank that was able to pay me a stipend of $1,400 a month. Each sum was too stingy to enable me to do much more than scrape by, especially after taxes…but scrape by I’ve so far managed to do, and without having to work for any bosses from hell, either. In those respects, I’ve been luckier so far than the hapless JD from the Business Insider article.

Yet I have a broader reason for steering clear of the “damn law schools” bandwagon. It is the applicants’ responsibility to conduct thorough research into the academic programs to which they apply and the careers to which they grant access, the better to ensure that they’re investing their time, tuition/loan money and work in the right places. More specifically, I think applicants have always borne that responsibility, since even before it became fashionable for pundits to pillory law schools for their purported racketeering.

Consider, for instance, this Business Insider interviewee’s own story. He rightly advises prospective law school applicants to “work for a law firm for at least a year before going to law school and see if it’s something you want to do.” (Sound familiar? I sure hope so.) Yet he seems to have learned this lesson the hard way, since at the interview’s outset, he answered the question, “Why did you decide to go to law school?” with “Because I wanted to be a lawyer. I also wanted greater career opportunities than my BA offered me.” Left unmentioned is the issue of what made him want to be a lawyer, or why he thought that a JD might be a ticket to any careers beyond just practicing law. It’s a pity the interviewer didn’t ask about it, for the answer might have shed some light on whether he had any business going to law school in the first place, regardless of the current state of the legal job market.

He further mentions, “I believed the legal education industry’s sales pitch circa 2007-08 that lawyers will always be in demand and that bankruptcy will be a hot practice area when the economy is poor.” Insofar as this pitch was misinformed or even downright dishonest, I sympathize — but only so much. These claims were certainly plausible and believable, especially from the vantage point of that period, when the economic crisis was just taking off and the arguable folly of law school wasn’t yet obvious. Nonetheless, these were law school officials leading our man astray — not actual lawyers. While he can be forgiven for listening to this advice, given its supposedly reputable source, it’s fair to blame him for falling for it hook, line and sinker. He shouldn’t have believed the hype without consulting some practicing lawyers who could have set him straight. They would have been much less biased sources of advice; after all, as he himself puts it, “law grads do not have an economic interest in your attendance at law school. The law school always does.”

Could he have been expected to know any of this back in his younger, more callow days? I think so. Anytime a school that mires its students in debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars paints a glowing portrait of its program, without mentioning any caveats or sounding any cautionary tone, one should always take its cheerleading with a grain of salt. Is his naiveté nonetheless understandable? Certainly it is…but there is a more general principle here, one that applies to the analysis of whether one should apply to any academic program. The people running these programs have a vested interest in getting you in their doors; what they tell you isn’t necessarily to be trusted. You should never base your decision entirely on their word.

None of what I’ve said here should be taken to mean that law schools themselves don’t deserve a hefty share of the blame for so many of their graduates’ predicaments. It’s only right to criticize them for their lack of transparency, which can and does have destructive consequences. Yet that doesn’t absolve applicants of their own responsibility to do their homework before jumping in with both feet. That principle holds truer than ever these days, with law school enrollment plummeting and law school-bashing so popular. I salute all those who continue to warn young people of the perils of going to law school unprepared, or for the wrong reasons, or at all; they are performing a valuable service to the public. I just hope that the intended beneficiaries of these warnings continue to be smart enough to listen up — before it’s too late.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Fleshman via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Are Law Schools to Blame for Graduates’ Struggles? appeared first on Law Street.