Student Loans are Wage Slavery

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley

Originally posted by: Special K
I agree that government guarantees and subsidies to the student loan companies have a large part in the costs of college rising at > 2x the rate of inflation for years, but if you give up the government guarantees, would banks even make loans to students? Given that you need to be 18 to open a credit card, most entering college students aren't going to have any credit history for lenders to base their decision on. Parents can co-sign, but what if your parents have a lousy credit score? Are you just SOL in that case?

Another idea I had was to base the maximum amount of student loans one could borrow on the expected future income of their chosen field, but the problem with that idea is that students can easily change majors, which makes it impossible for lenders to make any sort of definite statement about a student's future income.

If I were a loan company, I would make the max loan amount and interest rates dependent on field of study. In order for a student to get loans for the next academic year, they would have to reapply, and submit statements of intent for their field of study, as well as an academic transcript.

Loan companies could use a student's academic history and driving record as other indicators of responsibility. If the student can't get a loan because parents can't cosign, then I think it should fall to the universities to extend more grant aid or work/study. If the student is really someone the university wants to attend, they will find a way to do so.

When people get a mortgage, a bank will generally ask for employment history, proof of employment, and also run a credit check. Student loan companies should also have to do their homework before lending money or continuing to loan money to a student.

I like that idea. Don't necessarily require a credit check, but do require the students to submit grades each school year before being granted loans for the next year. This will allow the banks to see that the student is indeed making satisfactory progress toward their degree. If they change majors, reduce the amount of loans offered for the following year. If the student cannot come up with the difference through parents, savings, etc. then they will just have to find a less expensive school to attend.

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

Which is why the government should step up and set standards for grade requirements. Why should the taxpayers support the people most likely not to be able to pay the loan? Plus you could give incentives for picking certain degrees. I've been wanting my state to force colleges to raise tuition, but offer more money in the form of tuition discounts for students within high demand degree programs with good grades. Plus you can get a 2 year degree in my state for under $5k total if you keep a 2.5 gpa. If you do certain programs it will cost more since you go to summer school, but you can go completely free if you graduate high school with a 3.0GPA and 1100 SAT and keep a 3.0 through college.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley

Originally posted by: Special K
I agree that government guarantees and subsidies to the student loan companies have a large part in the costs of college rising at > 2x the rate of inflation for years, but if you give up the government guarantees, would banks even make loans to students? Given that you need to be 18 to open a credit card, most entering college students aren't going to have any credit history for lenders to base their decision on. Parents can co-sign, but what if your parents have a lousy credit score? Are you just SOL in that case?

Another idea I had was to base the maximum amount of student loans one could borrow on the expected future income of their chosen field, but the problem with that idea is that students can easily change majors, which makes it impossible for lenders to make any sort of definite statement about a student's future income.

If I were a loan company, I would make the max loan amount and interest rates dependent on field of study. In order for a student to get loans for the next academic year, they would have to reapply, and submit statements of intent for their field of study, as well as an academic transcript.

Loan companies could use a student's academic history and driving record as other indicators of responsibility. If the student can't get a loan because parents can't cosign, then I think it should fall to the universities to extend more grant aid or work/study. If the student is really someone the university wants to attend, they will find a way to do so.

When people get a mortgage, a bank will generally ask for employment history, proof of employment, and also run a credit check. Student loan companies should also have to do their homework before lending money or continuing to loan money to a student.

I like that idea. Don't necessarily require a credit check, but do require the students to submit grades each school year before being granted loans for the next year. This will allow the banks to see that the student is indeed making satisfactory progress toward their degree. If they change majors, reduce the amount of loans offered for the following year. If the student cannot come up with the difference through parents, savings, etc. then they will just have to find a less expensive school to attend.

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

The student loan rates seem awfully high to me, despite the loans being guaranteed by the government. Federal Stafford loans are at 6.8% for grad students, and the GradPlus loans are at 8.5%. Undergrad students are currently getting a break on the Stafford loans - their rates are currently at 5.6% for the 2009-10 school year, and will drop to a minimum of 3.4% for the 2011-12 school year. They will then jump back up to 6.8% for the 2012-13 school year.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: txrandom
Student loans have caused tuition to skyrocket more than anything else.

Plus too many people think they need to go college. College isn't for everyone.

Yep, very true.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: tk149

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

Which is why the government should step up and set standards for grade requirements. Why should the taxpayers support the people most likely not to be able to pay the loan? Plus you could give incentives for picking certain degrees. I've been wanting my state to force colleges to raise tuition, but offer more money in the form of tuition discounts for students within high demand degree programs with good grades. Plus you can get a 2 year degree in my state for under $5k total if you keep a 2.5 gpa. If you do certain programs it will cost more since you go to summer school, but you can go completely free if you graduate high school with a 3.0GPA and 1100 SAT and keep a 3.0 through college.

Good thoughts but...you are creating an incentive for a school to lower it's academic standards. For example, if 50% of a school's students fail to make the GPA cut-off, the school loses 50% of its revenue. There's no way a school would take a risk like this. The school might increase its admission standards, but would probably decrease its grading standards.

Some people will also argue that social engineering (i.e. encouraging some degrees over others) is a restriction of freedom.

I don't have any answers. I just want to point out that while I like your ideas, there are problems with this approach.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: tk149

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

The student loan rates seem awfully high to me, despite the loans being guaranteed by the government. Federal Stafford loans are at 6.8% for grad students, and the GradPlus loans are at 8.5%. Undergrad students are currently getting a break on the Stafford loans - their rates are currently at 5.6% for the 2009-10 school year, and will drop to a minimum of 3.4% for the 2011-12 school year. They will then jump back up to 6.8% for the 2012-13 school year.

Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, the Federal government sets rates on Stafford loans. IIRC, Stafford loans are fixed rate. That means that if the prime interest rate rises above the Stafford rate, somebody is going to lose money. There are no origination fees for these loans, so the lender can't attempt to make money up front. In other words, don't expect fixed rate loans to match the historically low rates that we have right now.

 

[Killerme33]

A little late to the party, I realize, but I work in the student loan department at a very major lender of loans. If you have any questions about them I'll be more than happy to answer.

To those who were complaining about student loans being too easy to obtain, that's a double edged sword. If they are too easy then you'll have scenarios like the one the OP posted where people can't afford to pay them back or think the banks were too easy in their lending practices. If the requirements for loans are raised, people will complain that they can't get a loan to pay for their own/their child's college. I deal with plenty of upset parents who are denied for a loan for their child who are very angry that we dared to decline them, even though they have collections and late payments on their loans. My favorite question they ask is "How is my child going to go to school now?"

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: tk149

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

The student loan rates seem awfully high to me, despite the loans being guaranteed by the government. Federal Stafford loans are at 6.8% for grad students, and the GradPlus loans are at 8.5%. Undergrad students are currently getting a break on the Stafford loans - their rates are currently at 5.6% for the 2009-10 school year, and will drop to a minimum of 3.4% for the 2011-12 school year. They will then jump back up to 6.8% for the 2012-13 school year.

Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, the Federal government sets rates on Stafford loans. IIRC, Stafford loans are fixed rate. That means that if the prime interest rate rises above the Stafford rate, somebody is going to lose money. There are no origination fees for these loans, so the lender can't attempt to make money up front. In other words, don't expect fixed rate loans to match the historically low rates that we have right now.

Stafford loans issued prior to 07/06 were variable, and tied to the 91-day Tbill yield. Stafford loans issued after that date are fixed.

Student loans don't have historically low rates right now - that was my point. Private loans tied to the prime rate, LIBOR, etc. could have a lower rate right now than Stafford loans. With the federal funds rate near 0, loans for graduate students seem like a complete ripoff right now - 6.8% for Stafford loans, and 8.5% for GradPlus loans. I doubt we will see the prime rate get that high for quite awhile.

 

[Regs]

When everybody "has to" attend school to have any exsistance of a life after high school, what do you think will happen? Why do you think school is so expensive in the first place?

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: tk149

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

Which is why the government should step up and set standards for grade requirements. Why should the taxpayers support the people most likely not to be able to pay the loan? Plus you could give incentives for picking certain degrees. I've been wanting my state to force colleges to raise tuition, but offer more money in the form of tuition discounts for students within high demand degree programs with good grades. Plus you can get a 2 year degree in my state for under $5k total if you keep a 2.5 gpa. If you do certain programs it will cost more since you go to summer school, but you can go completely free if you graduate high school with a 3.0GPA and 1100 SAT and keep a 3.0 through college.

Good thoughts but...you are creating an incentive for a school to lower it's academic standards. For example, if 50% of a school's students fail to make the GPA cut-off, the school loses 50% of its revenue. There's no way a school would take a risk like this. The school might increase its admission standards, but would probably decrease its grading standards.

Some people will also argue that social engineering (i.e. encouraging some degrees over others) is a restriction of freedom.

I don't have any answers. I just want to point out that while I like your ideas, there are problems with this approach.

So what if they lower their standards for shitty programs? They need to close their doors any way if they don't want to push for their students to do better. If they keep them open? Less student enroll in it, and hopefully they lose accreditation. It will provide an incentive to drop the dead weight. Filling a classroom with people who don't give shit doesn't work in the general public system so why should work in our higher education system? They're just making it harder on the students who do want to do well. There are a lot of things schools should have to do keep these essentially free dollars coming in.

By the way, to help with the transition, that's why I think the schools should be forced to raise tuition. It essentially moves the tax payer dollars from the dumb students who can't pay to the better students who can't pay. If you're not making a 2.5(that's a fair standard), then why should the state or federal government help you? No one wants to hire someone with a gpa below a 2.5 any way.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Originally posted by: Killerme33
A little late to the party, I realize, but I work in the student loan department at a very major lender of loans. If you have any questions about them I'll be more than happy to answer.

To those who were complaining about student loans being too easy to obtain, that's a double edged sword. If they are too easy then you'll have scenarios like the one the OP posted where people can't afford to pay them back or think the banks were too easy in their lending practices. If the requirements for loans are raised, people will complain that they can't get a loan to pay for their own/their child's college. I deal with plenty of upset parents who are denied for a loan for their child who are very angry that we dared to decline them, even though they have collections and late payments on their loans. My favorite question they ask is "How is my child going to go to school now?"

Interesting that it is the parents who call to complain.

One of the big problems in our society IMO is that people have a hard time saying no. People are afraid to draw the hard line.

To the hell with the helicopter parents. Fuck them.

 

[josh0099]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: tk149

I like this idea, except that is a LOT of work involved for a bank. Consequently, it's also a bit unfair, because a bank might be willing to do all this work for a larger loan (i.e. poor student), but not a smaller loan (i.e. middle class student). Also, the interest rates the bank would charge, if not subsidized by the government, would be much higher. Remember, this is an unsecured loan. If the student dies, or skips town, or just doesn't find a job after graduation, the bank eats the loss. If you want an example of typical interest rates for unsecured loans, look at credit card rates for people with no credit history. This sort of program would really make it risky for people to try for higher education, and restricts their degree choices.

Which is why the government should step up and set standards for grade requirements. Why should the taxpayers support the people most likely not to be able to pay the loan? Plus you could give incentives for picking certain degrees. I've been wanting my state to force colleges to raise tuition, but offer more money in the form of tuition discounts for students within high demand degree programs with good grades. Plus you can get a 2 year degree in my state for under $5k total if you keep a 2.5 gpa. If you do certain programs it will cost more since you go to summer school, but you can go completely free if you graduate high school with a 3.0GPA and 1100 SAT and keep a 3.0 through college.

Good thoughts but...you are creating an incentive for a school to lower it's academic standards. For example, if 50% of a school's students fail to make the GPA cut-off, the school loses 50% of its revenue. There's no way a school would take a risk like this. The school might increase its admission standards, but would probably decrease its grading standards.

Some people will also argue that social engineering (i.e. encouraging some degrees over others) is a restriction of freedom.

I don't have any answers. I just want to point out that while I like your ideas, there are problems with this approach.

So what if they lower their standards for shitty programs? They need to close their doors any way if they don't want to push for their students to do better. If they keep them open? Less student enroll in it, and hopefully they lose accreditation. It will provide an incentive to drop the dead weight. Filling a classroom with people who don't give shit doesn't work in the general public system so why should work in our higher education system? They're just making it harder on the students who do want to do well. There are a lot of things schools should have to do keep these essentially free dollars coming in.

By the way, to help with the transition, that's why I think the schools should be forced to raise tuition. It essentially moves the tax payer dollars from the dumb students who can't pay to the better students who can't pay. If you're not making a 2.5(that's a fair standard), then why should the state or federal government help you? No one wants to hire someone with a gpa below a 2.5 any way.

I disagree with the GPA requirement, you are just encouraging grade inflation and if you are able to graduate why should you not be able to get government funding...Also it really depends on your degree program and how hard it really is...I rather see someone strive to get a harder degree then have to switch to something easier and probably less marketable to maintain government funding.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Regs
When everybody "has to" attend school to have any exsistance of a life after high school, what do you think will happen? Why do you think school is so expensive in the first place?

I think there is some sort of social stigma attached to vocational schools such as plumbers, electricians, etc. and that these options aren't pushed seriously enough to high school students. If someone has a specific interest that would require a college degree, then sure, they should go to college. I just think they should also be aware of programs other than college that allow someone to learn a marketable skill.

Also they wouldn't be attending colleges if those same colleges weren't receiving such large subsidies from the government to make student loans.

 

[BassBomb]

I have yet to take out a loan for school..
Lucky because I live at home, and pay my own tuition by way of my coop/internships (I make enough to pay for tuition and have leftover in my pocket)

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Regs
When everybody "has to" attend school to have any exsistance of a life after high school, what do you think will happen? Why do you think school is so expensive in the first place?

I think there is some sort of social stigma attached to vocational schools such as plumbers, electricians, etc. and that these options aren't pushed seriously enough to high school students. If someone has a specific interest that would require a college degree, then sure, they should go to college. I just think they should also be aware of programs other than college that allow someone to learn a marketable skill.

Also they wouldn't be attending colleges if those same colleges weren't receiving such large subsidies from the government to make student loans.

I agree in that there should be no shame in attending vocational schools. Many professional tradesmen (and women if you are one) earn very decent salaries with reasonable job security. These options should probably be pushed a bit more in high school instead of perhaps dictating that college is the only option. I do totally support people choosing to study whatever the hell they want to in college, I just would like to make sure those individuals are certain that college is the best fit for them.

 

[holden j caufield]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: holden j caufield
it's this crazy culture that puts such a high standing a degree and from where you get it. It's not the loans that are a sham it's the public universities and what they charge. Before JC and Cal State unis were affordable to people who were poor but now it's costing ridiculous amounts. UC schools in calif are way over priced. Great system but the tuition just goes up so much there isn't anything students can do about it. Tough to get a white collar job without one, so there hand is forced

even w/ raising tuition, the state is losing money per student in the UC system.

That's because the UC system throws money in the garbage by the truckload. I worked within that system for a while, the amount of waste, foolish spending, and payoffs to friends was staggering.

The amount of money UC schools pull in there is no way the should be losing money. I've gone to a UC school and have worked there. It's the craziest things the prices they pay for things. I think 20 enties are greased along the way. Besides that, everything is a terrible ripoff, from the dorms to the teachers who write books and force you to pay for them, parking passes etc. Then you can't even sell that book next quarter because the 90th edition has changed a few a pages. It's criminal, if they were in it for higher education the books should be PDF.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Regs
When everybody "has to" attend school to have any exsistance of a life after high school, what do you think will happen? Why do you think school is so expensive in the first place?

I think there is some sort of social stigma attached to vocational schools such as plumbers, electricians, etc. and that these options aren't pushed seriously enough to high school students. If someone has a specific interest that would require a college degree, then sure, they should go to college. I just think they should also be aware of programs other than college that allow someone to learn a marketable skill.

Also they wouldn't be attending colleges if those same colleges weren't receiving such large subsidies from the government to make student loans.

I agree in that there should be no shame in attending vocational schools. Many professional tradesmen (and women if you are one) earn very decent salaries with reasonable job security. These options should probably be pushed a bit more in high school instead of perhaps dictating that college is the only option. I do totally support people choosing to study whatever the hell they want to in college, I just would like to make sure those individuals are certain that college is the best fit for them.

I went to vocational school while I went to high school and came out with a 2 year cert and some IT certifications, went right to work for a while.

The pay was pretty decent.

Back in college now, but still it isn't a bad path for many people.

Unfortunately, like college, there were a lot of very unmotivated people.

I can't tell you how many people I see in college who only go because their parents gave them the option of going to school or getting a job.

 

[Scarpozzi]

My wife has about $80k in student loans. Here's my take on the whole deal....

If you want a career that pays a lot of money, you may need to get a graduate degree from an expensive school. Law schools and Med schools are the two that come to mind... Both can be upwards of $30k a year and other expenses pile up quickly.

Having said that, the risk/reward makes sense if a few things apply.

#1. The student doesn't have existing debt - This is one of the most important keys. A lot of folks run $10-15k of credit card debt on top of their loans. If you tack that on, the high interest rates make it difficult to touch the principle of any of your loans.

#2. You choose a profession with a guaranteed job - After getting out, you need to work. 6 months with no income is a lot of lost wages and a lot of interest added to your debt. Some specialties simply don't pay and entry level work is usually lower paying. New Grads tend to make less money and that trend is even worse in times of recession. Expect to make 10% less than industry standard and bank the rest or use it to pay the loans off faster.

#3. The biggest mistake young people make is they invest in the wrong things. Buying a new Benz or Lexus may be nice when you're pulling in 6 figures, but that just adds more debt and takes away from your repayment options. The car is going to depreciate or be totalled before you'll pay off your loans. If you can keep driving the Civic and pay the loans first, you'll save thousands of dollars.

#4. Lower your living costs until you get the loans in check.


For us, I'm going to cover our mortgage while she covers the loans. We're expecting to have the loans paid back in a maximum of 3 years and the house paid off in 7-9 years.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Chryso
Yeah, making people be responsible for their actions is such a bad thing!
Are you retarded?

That's not the point, smartass. The point is that these banks give loans to people they flat-out know can't afford them because if they default, they'll still get paid by federal government, which is paid for responsible folks like you and me.

Fucking QED - this isn't a soapbox, it's a train wreck.

EDIT - dammit, I've gotta remember to check dates before posting...

 

[JDub02]

a college degree is a right!!! obama is going to pay for it!!! yes we can!!!! yaaaaay!!!



btw, i'm still waiting for obama to cover my rent and my car payment.

 

[alphatarget1]

Don't major in liberal arts. Lenders should be able to discriminate based on major. A psychology major should not get the same treatment as science/engineering majors based on their projected future earnings.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Dumac
Student loans are fine if you end up using a career that makes a significantly larger salary than what you probably would have had otherwise (i.e. med or law school). It isn't fine if you are paying 50k a year for four years for an art degree.

Do not lump law school in with that. A LOT of people that go to law school to become lawyers find out the hard way that most entry level lawyers don't make squat. Lawyers start making money when they become trial lawyers, not lawyers that draft documents and proof other's documents.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dumac
Student loans are fine if you end up using a career that makes a significantly larger salary than what you probably would have had otherwise (i.e. med or law school). It isn't fine if you are paying 50k a year for four years for an art degree.

Do not lump law school in with that. A LOT of people that go to law school to become lawyers find out the hard way that most entry level lawyers don't make squat. Lawyers start making money when they become trial lawyers, not lawyers that draft documents and proof other's documents.

Law schools a little like gambling. You spend a lot of money, hoping you strike it big, but the odds are heavily stacked against you. Most people don't realize this when they go to law school. You gotta bust ass and be top 10% or go to a top 20 school and be top 30%.

Even then you are looking excessive hours to get that $145k salary.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dumac
Student loans are fine if you end up using a career that makes a significantly larger salary than what you probably would have had otherwise (i.e. med or law school). It isn't fine if you are paying 50k a year for four years for an art degree.

Do not lump law school in with that. A LOT of people that go to law school to become lawyers find out the hard way that most entry level lawyers don't make squat. Lawyers start making money when they become trial lawyers, not lawyers that draft documents and proof other's documents.

Law schools a little like gambling. You spend a lot of money, hoping you strike it big, but the odds are heavily stacked against you. Most people don't realize this when they go to law school. You gotta bust ass and be top 10% or go to a top 20 school and be top 30%.

Even then you are looking excessive hours to get that $145k salary.

That's what I hear as well. med school has a much more guaranteed system. Just gotta barely make it past each loop and you're guaranteed a 100K+ salary

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dumac
Student loans are fine if you end up using a career that makes a significantly larger salary than what you probably would have had otherwise (i.e. med or law school). It isn't fine if you are paying 50k a year for four years for an art degree.

Do not lump law school in with that. A LOT of people that go to law school to become lawyers find out the hard way that most entry level lawyers don't make squat. Lawyers start making money when they become trial lawyers, not lawyers that draft documents and proof other's documents.

Law schools a little like gambling. You spend a lot of money, hoping you strike it big, but the odds are heavily stacked against you. Most people don't realize this when they go to law school. You gotta bust ass and be top 10% or go to a top 20 school and be top 30%.

Even then you are looking excessive hours to get that $145k salary.

That's what I hear as well. med school has a much more guaranteed system. Just gotta barely make it past each loop and you're guaranteed a 100K+ salary

Thats because the AMA makes sure there is a shortage of Dr's graduating each year. The ABA has no such ability to cap the amount of people starting law school each year.

Also, Law School is the catch all for people who have undergraduate degrees and dont know what they are going to do with their lives. They then decide to go to law school because they think they can make a lot of money.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Dumac
Student loans are fine if you end up using a career that makes a significantly larger salary than what you probably would have had otherwise (i.e. med or law school). It isn't fine if you are paying 50k a year for four years for an art degree.

Do not lump law school in with that. A LOT of people that go to law school to become lawyers find out the hard way that most entry level lawyers don't make squat. Lawyers start making money when they become trial lawyers, not lawyers that draft documents and proof other's documents.

Law schools a little like gambling. You spend a lot of money, hoping you strike it big, but the odds are heavily stacked against you. Most people don't realize this when they go to law school. You gotta bust ass and be top 10% or go to a top 20 school and be top 30%.

Even then you are looking excessive hours to get that $145k salary.

That's what I hear as well. med school has a much more guaranteed system. Just gotta barely make it past each loop and you're guaranteed a 100K+ salary

Thats because the AMA makes sure there is a shortage of Dr's graduating each year. The ABA has no such ability to cap the amount of people starting law school each year.

That's kind of interesting. Shouldnt there be a regulating body taht controls the # of accredited law schools there are?