

Boston College 3L Asks for His Money Back; Hilarity Ensues - mikecarlucci
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/10/boston-college-3l-asks-for-his-money-back-hilarity-ensues/

======
kgrin
tl;dr: structural adjustments are hard, transition costs suck.

It's easy to judge the author for feeling "entitled" to a high-paying post-
law-school job, and - just to get this out of the way - obviously he isn't
(entitled). Yes, he made his own choices, and just like he would have been
screwed getting his telegraph-repairman certificate circa 1900, there's always
a certain amount of risk one takes choosing a career.

That said, the way many law schools - particularly top-50 schools like BC -
market themselves _is_ indeed as pathways to high-paying Big Law jobs, and
indeed is the only way they can justify the tuition. His complaint (which I
obviously have no way to really evaluate) about BC Career Services being less-
than-helpful is very relevant here.

All that said, the underlying problem is more complex than "BC is greedy" or
"the author made a boneheaded career choice" - there's a structural shift in
the market for lawyers (there were too many, market was oversaturated), and a
bunch of people who made choices based on market conditions in 2007 are pretty
screwed. Yes, they all bear some responsibility; what now, though - does this
guy go back to teaching and have $100K+ in debt while pulling down "normal-
person" wages? Law school tuition, to a large extent, reflects expected
earnings. You radically change half of that equation, and things start to
break (and yes, you can declare personal bankruptcy... except that student
loan debt is among the most difficult to dispose of, even via bankruptcy).

Over time, I suspect (though who really knows?) that either salaries or
tuitions or both will adjust, if not in nominal than in real (inflation-
adjusted) terms. But what about the several "lost generations" of JD's with
mountains of debt but no jobs? I don't have an easy answer - "universal JD
loan amnesty" doesn't sound like a great idea either, and who would fund such
a thing anyway? - but it's a problem worth considering.

This is actually somewhat similar (though of course not identical) to the
structural problem confounding many health care reformers. Medicine in the US
is really expensive; part (though by no means all) of the problem is that
doctors, especially specialists, are paid a lot. A big part of the reason why
(though maybe it's more accurate to say it's a correlation - I'm not really
sure what the causal direction is) is that after a really long time in school,
you graduate with ~$500K of loans, and then (in most cases) live in penury
during your residency. You sort of _have to_ be able to cash out at the end of
the rainbow, otherwise it's not just unattractive but borderline impossible
for anyone who isn't otherwise independently wealthy.

So what do you do? It's straightforward and simple to say, "doctors should
just make less, and tuition should be correspondingly lower." But of course
we're not in a giant central planning system, and even if we were, it's not
like that's a switch you can flip overnight. If you suddenly started paying
all doctors less, how would the class of 2010, with that half-mil in loans,
make good on those? Everyone (or at least a great many people) realize that
there's a structural problem, and the vague outlines of a better
equilibrium... but how you get from A to B is a lot less clear.

(Disclaimers: there's all sorts of other reasons why medicine isn't really a
proper perfect market, etc. It's not a perfect analogy, etc.)

Fun exercise for the reader: why are new minted MBAs not in the same boat?
Anecdotally, many are, but not as many as new lawyers.

~~~
bradleyland
IMO, the best solution to resolving the tuition pricing/lending issue is to
strip away bankruptcy protection from the lender's side of the student loan
equation.

I worked for a bankruptcy trustee for a couple of years, and it was an
enlightening experience. Generally speaking, the greater the security, the
higher the dollar amount you will be loaned. An example: A bank will loan you
hundreds of thousands of dollars for a home, but only $10k in credit cards.
Why? Because they mortgage security is the house. The bank has something to
take. With credit cards, the debtor simply has to file for bankruptcy in order
escape the debt. This introduces a level of accountability on the behalf of
the lender.

Rewind to student loans. There is no accountability to the lender. You cannot
escape student loan debt. Period. As a student lender, rather than evaluating
the risk of default, I am left to focus on the debtor's ability to service the
debt. I may even loan them more money than I think they can realistically pay
back. Why? Because I'm able to borrow money at such low rates that I can
generate a tremendous cash churn at a rate that is many times my borrowing
rate. Even if I have to write off a portion of the loan value at the end of
the term (the debtor dies or flat defaults and goes to jail), I'm still ahead
of the game because I've been compounding my earnings for years.

It's a sick system with no escape for student debtors. The system was created
to incentivize higher education, but the unintended consequence is that an
entire market has sprung forth from a custom tailored opportunity for predator
lending. Big surprise.

~~~
kgrin
"flat defaults and goes to jail" - the following isn't a joke question: do you
actually mean that people go to prison for defaulting on a loan? I thought
debtors' prisons were... a concept we got past around the Victorian era?

~~~
bradleyland
Sorry, no. That was hyperbole. You're not in jail in a traditional sense, but
there are a laundry list of bad things that will happen, making it seem like
you are. I'm talking things like wage garnishment and draining bank accounts.
It's difficult to live a life based on cash (as in green paper), so at some
point, the banks will catch up with you and drain your accounts. It's next to
impossible to lead a normal life when you can't even save up enough money to
pay cash for a $5000 car. The impact of wage garnishment on employment are
significant as well. How motivated would you feel to show up to work, knowing
that you'll never see the majority of your wages. This drives a lot of people
to do stupid things like commit fraud, which can result in jail time if you
repeatedly break the law.

You literally end up on the run from your debt. That's not a life you want to
live.

------
synnik
When I went to law school, orentation consisted of 3 days of being repeatedly
told:

1) Your degree will not get you the salaries you expect. You will be paying
these loans off forever. 2) Most law school grads hate being lawyers 3) There
is an extremely high level of dis-satisfaction with this degree and this
career path. 4) If any of this bothers you, LEAVE NOW.

I am the only member of my class who actually listened, and left after one
semester.

Nobody can blame the schools, as they seem to be very clear on these issues.

~~~
endtime
Nobody can blame a school which says that, I agree. Which law school was this?

~~~
synnik
University of Denver.

------
mentat
This article seems to reflect the "entitlement" approach to education. It's up
to the person entering school to determine whether the time and debt are worth
it to them when they sign up not when they fail to get a job. It is not career
services' job to get you a job. They should provide the resources and training
to give you a better chance. However, in the end either you made a good choice
or a bad one going to school. Either you're someone who has the initiative to
get a job or you aren't. Schools are in business to make money, not to get
people jobs. They're going to use the same marketing tricks as everyone else.

~~~
sparky
* They're going to use the same marketing tricks as everyone else.*

Exactly. We are bombarded by claims of "give us money and good things will
happen to you" every single day. The message from "society" (and colleges
themselves) about the benefits of college may have somewhat nobler-than-
average motivations, but in the end these claims must be scrutinized in the
same way as spam about Viagra or late-night infomercials.

In the end, unfortunately the issue of whether or where to go to school is
entangled with many soft issues that make it difficult to employ a strictly
rational analysis. For instance, if I believe the advice that I should do what
I love, it's harder to come to grips with the fact that the schooling required
to do so is a bigger financial bet than I can afford to make. I don't think we
need special mechanisms (like tuition refunds) for people who made this
_particular_ bad bet though.

------
yesimahuman
This is stupid. 3rd year student, going to graduate soon with a law degree,
can still return back to teaching if he wants afterward, doesn't have to
forfeit house and home to pay back loans. He will be just fine. He made the
decision to go in the first place so he must have understood what taking loans
would be like.

~~~
achompas
He started in 2008--before the financial crisis. His assumptions about paying
off loans didn't include a once-in-a-generation economic event.

And to be honest, you don't know if his financial problems will deteriorate to
the point where he'll have to sell his home. Assuming he got a 50% stipend (he
probably didn't), he still owes BC $60,000. How will he pay that back on a
teacher's salary?

~~~
Robin_Message
In the UK, you pay back student loans at a rate dependent on your earnings, so
he would have no problems paying it back, even if it took 50 years it would
never become a hardship. I'm guessing the US is not so generous/socialist
though.

~~~
nkassis
From what I understand, there are ways you can negotiate you payments down to
a minimum of 50$ a month. I'm not sure how that stuff works but there many
ways of paying loans back.

------
joshuacc
"A lot of people will argue that this kid didn’t purchase a J.D., he purchased
an education and a way of thinking, and he cannot just “return” these things
in exchange for his money back. You know who will say those things? Law
professors, deans, and other theorists who have idealized the process of
“thinking like a lawyer.”"

You know who else will say those things? Web designers, web developers, and
pretty much anyone else in a service industry. Designers/developers can only
promise you a well-functioning web site, not a successful web-based business.
Likewise, a school can only promise to give you decent classes, not a
successful career.

Lack of success does not entitle you to a refund on work already performed on
your behalf.

~~~
Travis
I believe your analogy to web developers fails because the purpose of
education, at least in how they describe themselves, is presented as something
superior to commerce. And yet, all their actions and policies are (becoming
more) commercial in nature.

When I, as a web dev, contract with a business, we're both aware of the
commercial aspect of the relationship.

Schools, OTOH, present themselves as mentors. Who happen to drive you hundreds
of thousands of dollars in debt in order to build a grander institution.

I think schools (esp JD school) is more similar to the methods described in
"Economic Hit Men". Briefly, the World Bank would overlend money to developing
countries at the behest of U.S. political and corporate interests. Those U.S.
based interests would pretend like getting so much lent to countries like
Indonesia and Saudi Arabia was in their best interest, when it really was done
for the benefit of the US groups. Schools appear similar to that, to me.

------
mikecarlucci
While most likely in jest, this is likely going to be a problem at many
institutes of higher education. College grad unemployment is just 4.4% but how
many people get jobs in their field of study or even remotely taking advantage
of their degree/experience in college?

As someone who is facing the same problem as this BC student it's scary to
think about the decisions I made 4 years ago to get to this place. I never
dreamed of being in BigLaw and have always seen myself practicing law in an
alternative area but I know people who were counting on law school/college/MBA
to be a generic meal ticket.

The direct link has the whole letter but the ATL writeup had interesting
commentary: [http://eagleionline.com/2010/10/15/open-letter-to-interim-
de...](http://eagleionline.com/2010/10/15/open-letter-to-interim-dean-brown/)

~~~
mentat
These people are serious. They think they're entitled to a job after
graduation from school. One of my younger acquaintances was asking around
about how to sue his art school for not providing an education that got him a
job.

~~~
icegreentea
Not defending anyone, but this is partly the result of everyone in my
generation being told "go to college so you can get a (better) job" which of
course morphs into "go to college and you'll get a (well paying) job".

And let's be honest. Every school offering professional degrees is pretty much
advertising, implying, and pushing the idea that if you come to this school,
you will get a degree that will get you a well paying job. My school
(Waterloo) does this with their engineering program (which I am enrolled in),
and so does nearly every other 'top tier' engineering, law, and medical
program. Granted, none of them outright say it, or promise it, but it's so
heavily implied, that you have to cut our generation a bit of slack. Not that
it completely excuses us.

~~~
mentat
I'm pretty skeptical of all advertising now. I learned that in college not
from it failing to prepare me for work, but because that was explicitly taught
in classes. If people need defenses from the colleges now then perhaps that
needs to be taught in high school. I'm willing to accept that that skepticism
is not a "natural skill" but then it needs to be taught to people before they
can be exploited in ways that will ruin the rest of their life. Of course
there's a counter incentive in that the whole consumer economy relies on a
lack of that skill.

Edit: These sorts of lessons would best be taught by parents but right now
many seem to have lost the same skills through marketing to their belief that
their child is the best ever and that they have to do everything to make sure
their child has all the advantages possible.

------
achompas
Okay, before we go any further: can we skip the comments about the
responsibility behind taking loans?

It's hard to accurately calculate your degree's ROI when, between applying in
2007 and finishing in 2011, this country experiences the worst recession of
the last 70 years. No one expected this job market four years ago.

------
baddspellar
tl;dr: "I was convinced to go to law school by empty promises of a fulfilling
and remunerative career"

I've got no sympathy for this guy. I challenge him to come up an actual
_promise_ by the Law School that he'd have a "fulfilling and remunerative
career". Oh, sure, they might have published starting salary statistics from
recent years, but how is this different from _any_ other case where you assume
good times last forever? Did you found a dot com in late 1999? Did you buy a
house in 2006? Did you invest in silver in early 1980? In fact, in this case,
he's even better off that the people who made these other investments, because
it's _entirely_ up to him what he does with this education. John Cleese and
John Chambers both have law degrees, but were never hired by a big name law
firms.

------
roadnottaken
Yeah, but this is like asking for a refund after you've already eaten two-
thirds of the meal. If you want your money back shortly after starting, fine.
But this guy already received 2.5yrs of legal training. _Full_ refund? No way.

------
hoop
He wants his money back because he can't find a job in his field? Has he never
met a History major? Literature? Political Science? Economics? Unless the Dean
got his wife pregnant, this sounds like a personal problem.

------
carbocation
To what extent is this predicament a function of the mismatch between his
understanding of the signal sent by the BC brand and BigLaw's understanding of
the signal sent by the BC brand?

~~~
maxawaytoolong
BigLaw in Boston actually hires quite a few BC grads. It's ranked 15 by one of
the legal journals, I forget which.

It's also very strong in IP and corporate law. It is a feeder school for many
"biglaw-esque" IP law firms in Boston and NYC. It's the back up plan of many
MIT engineering students who feel like they are underpaid and did not have the
foresight to work on wall street during the 2000s.

~~~
carbocation
[http://money-law.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-partners-come-
fr...](http://money-law.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-partners-come-from-finding-
brass.html)

It's apparently ranked #30 in terms of # of partners at BigLaw firms. It's an
objective metric, but I readily admit that it's of unclear significance since
it's not weighted for class size and cannot account for interest or lack
thereof in BigLaw at these schools.

~~~
maxawaytoolong
Does anyone rank # of 1st year hires?

~~~
carbocation
Good point - I guess that is the more relevant question. I'm not sure of the
answer.

------
rick_2047
_A lot of people will argue that this kid didn’t purchase a J.D., he purchased
an education and a way of thinking, and he cannot just “return” these things
in exchange for his money back. You know who will say those things? Law
professors, deans, and other theorists who have idealized the process of
“thinking like a lawyer.”

But this kid (and thousands out there like him) did not go to law school to
gain some intangible brain stimulation. They went to law school in order to
get a job. That’s the whole point of a professional school. Deans who don’t
understand that point do a disservice to their students._

Now this is just sad. Is this not why the education system sucks? A part of
the problem is the difference between agendas of students (even among
themselves) and institutions.

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is a major contributing factor in the deterioration of the quality of
higher education. There are two ways to approach higher education. As an
opportunity to gain access to resources, knowledgeable professors, and fellow
students to aid in gaining knowledge. Or, as a burden of little more than
money and time that one must endure in order to obtain the credentials
necessary to get ahead in the job market.

The latter is a self-perpetuating cycle so long as people buy into the
credentialism of a college degree, but that road is utter uncritical of the
quality and so is ultimately destructive (of the quality of knowledge and
experience imparted by degree programs and also of the time and money spent
pursuing them).

