Open Letter to Interim Dean Brown
Oct 15, 2010
233 Comments
George Brown
George D. Brown
Interim Dean
Boston College Law School
885 Centre Street
Newton Centre, MA 02459
Dear Dean Brown,
I hope this letter finds you well. I want to start by thanking you for serving as the interim Dean. I know that it is always difficult to step into a situation at the last minute, but we are all thankful for your leadership.
Unfortunately, the occasion for me writing to you is not a happy one. As a 3L, my peers and I find ourselves in the midst of one of the worst job markets in the history of our profession. A few of us have been able to find employment, but the overwhelming majority of us are desperately looking, and unable to find anything. We are discouraged, scared, and in many cases, feeling rather hopeless about our chances of ever getting to practice law.
To compound our difficulties, many of us are in an enormous amount of debt from our legal studies. Soon after our graduation, we will be asked to make very large monthly payments towards this debt, regardless of whether we’ve been able to find employment or not. It is a debt which, despite being the size of a mortgage, gives us no tangible asset which we could try to sell or turn in to the bank. We are not even able to seek the protection of bankruptcy from this debt.
I write to you from a more desperate place than most: my wife is pregnant with our first child. She is due in April. With fatherhood impending, I go to bed every night terrified of the thought of trying to provide for my child AND paying off my J.D, and resentful at the thought that I was convinced to go to law school by empty promises of a fulfilling and remunerative career. And although my situation puts the enormity of the problem into sharp focus, there are a lot of us facing similar financial disasters. In all of this, we have had very little help from career services, who all seem to be as confounded as we are by this job market. Kate Devlin Joyce has been an amazing and helpful ally; everyone else in that office has shrugged their shoulders at us and asked if we have tried using Linkedin.
I’d like to propose a solution to this problem: I am willing to leave law school, without a degree, at the end of this semester. In return, I would like a full refund of the tuition I’ve paid over the last two and a half years.
This will benefit both of us: on the one hand, I will be free to return to the teaching career I left to come here. I’ll be able to provide for my family without the crushing weight of my law school loans. On the other hand, this will help BC Law go up in the rankings, since you will not have to report my unemployment at graduation to US News. This will present no loss to me, only gain: in today’s job market, a J.D. seems to be more of a liability than an asset. I will explain the gap in my resume by simply saying that I attended law school, but was unable to finish for financial reasons. In the short run, refunding my tuition might present a financial challenge to the law school, but in the long run, better US News rankings will help you far more than having yet another disgruntled and unemployed alumnus.
I would love to discuss this proposal with you further. I would also love to hear any other thoughts or solutions you may have. Thanks very much for your time, and I look forward to speaking with you.
Best regards,
[Name redacted]
Class of 2011
The views expressed above are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Eagleionline or any of its members.
Who posted this article?
No matter how you slice this, “Name Redacted” actively made a decision to live outside his means. His situation is no different that of the thousands of homeowners that took on a house that was too expensive.
Maybe BC inflated its numbers, but taking on $100k+ is risky in any economy. Good news is that he will eventually land a job.
I disagree that the author made a decision to live outside his means. I think you could reasonably say that he made a failed investment. You could even argue that he made a foolhardy investment. But getting an education and buying an expensive home or boat are not comparable.
For the most part, tangible assets such as a home, boat, or car both depreciate in value over time and (unless you purchase the asset for business purposes) will not increase earning capacity.
In contrast, an education (at least in theory) should increase earning capacity. This makes education an economic investment. It is apparent that, at least for the author, the investment did not pay off.
The cost of education has been outpacing inflation for some time now. I believe we may be witnessing the beginning an Educational Bubble deflation.
The market will probably correct itself: Knowing their realistic earning potential, more students will choose local, less expensive schools. But in any market correction, there are always losers on the the bleeding edge of the collapse. Perhaps today’s law school students and recent grads are those losers.
The decision to get a law degree is not like buying a boat. It is a measured investment. Unfortunately, it may be an over-valued investment at this point.
What about companies who took on debt outside of their means, and then dumped the responsibility on American taxpayers when they couldn’t pay their loans back?
Those companies are reprehensible too. The acknowledgement that they got away with it isn’t an endorsement of their strategy.
law schools need to be like med schools in the 1920s and cull about 2/3s of them. There are way too many lawyers so that means no money and a lot of people being lawyers that shouldn’t
My guess is that Suffolk or Northeastern would have given the author a full scholarship, and he thought he was too good for a school outside the same rankings he believes schools cave to….
Missing the point everyone.
1. Regardless of how hard-ass you think you are relative to this guy, there is something systemically wrong: both with applicants’ expectations as a generation AND with law schools holding themselves out to be something that they’re not in entirety.
2. BC Law itself, IF a culprit of misrepresentation, is suffering from a law school industry wide “accounting fraud” of sorts.
3. Like the recent economic crises and the players in it, BC Law was doing fine with whatever numbers they were inflating when the market was good. Now not so good, but everyone’s still used to the old habits.
4. Law schools, bar exams, and the like, are businesses. They make profits. In an ideal market, all information is accurate and reasonably available. Not in the legal market, which has a monopoly practice and various methods of artificially maintaining prices and quantities which are essentially unfair. Think of partner profits versus associate layoffs.
Bottom Line:
There is a fundamental disconnect between the legal supply of goods (education, services by attorneys), demand (recruiting associates, paralegals, services by clients), and prices (education costs, hourly fees, etc.).
If we are to let the market correct any problems in the legal market, including legal education, we need to connect the disparate parts of the market machinery to let the effect register.
Law schools:
A. Disclose true figures and impose mandatory audits.
B. Make realistic assessments of employment figures and scale (down) your matriculation appropriately.
C. Invest or allocate more resources to career services and alumni assistance.
As for the ABA, law firms, casebooks, state bars, and other anachronistic pedagogical and professional practices, that’s a whole different can of worms.
what a fool and whinny [expletive]… he still has plenty of time to find a job, and he goes to a good law school so why doesn’t he just man up and join the army JAG. Not to mention the fact he has at least one year before he has to pay anything back, and under the new obama health care bill, student loan payments can not be more than 15% of one’s income. This guy probably can’t find a job because he is an idiot. My recommendation… go back to teaching.
Would you want to attend a law class from this guy?
“Ok students, here’s the thing. If you got an offer to settle, but you rejected it and are now about to be crushed by the opposing side, just post a public request to settle now and everybody can walk away and bear their own costs. It worked for me!”
I agree that he is quitting a little prematurely. I don’t know what his expectations are, but deciding that you made a bad decision to go to an expensive school when you are nearly done and it just hasn’t been as easy to find a job as you thought, are not good reasons to expect a refund. He should do the lawyerly thing and just do everything he can to find a job and then sue the school for false representations after he has proven what they said wasn’t true. Until he has done everything he can to find a job with and without the help of career services, he really can’t say much about it.
Bobby, “manning up” and joining JAG is not the easy fall back many people imagine it to be. Last cycle Army JAG had a 6% acceptance rate. FWIW I’m a recent law school grad also unable to find work and I can assure you that many unemployed JDs aren’t unemployed solely because they are idiots.
bobby is flat-out wrong about the 3L having “at least one year before he has to pay anything back”. i am a 2010 university of texas law grad that thanks my lucky stars that i received a firm offer. i took out $60,000 in federal loans (stafford and plus) to finance what i couldn’t pay with scholarships and savings. no private loans. under the terms i signed, some of the loans payments started becoming due the summer following my graduation in may (while i was studying for the bar exam). i wasn’t working at the time but luckily i had enough in my savings to make the minimum payments. i was just sworn in last week but since august i’ve been expected to make minimum payments of a few hundred dollars a month. just 6 months after my graduation (early december 2010) the minimum payments will be over $800 a month.
Obviously a liberal (college kid lawyer boston = oh yea, thats a liberal!). Only leftwinger democrats feel they are always entitled. Maybe you shouldn’t have voted for Obama then! Did you chant at the great obama? Did you chant “YES WE CAN!” and “O-BA-MA!” C’mon, confess to me son. I know you chanted it. I know you felt the tingles like all Obama Youth. All you mindless “YES WE CAN” Obama youth voting for that catastrophic failure SOB POS Obama get what is coming to you…time to move in with mommy. This is the change you wanted, now drink it deep. Obama Youth…voted in their own unemployment.
It’s funny to me how all the right winged elite want to blame Obama for everything!!! Way to go. Start where the blame should go. If I recall correctly the mess started downhill before Obama took office. It started after Clinton left office. Get your head out of your @ss and smell the Bush-Shit for what it is.
While this economic downturn may have its roots in the end of the Bush era, you absolutely cannot make any argument that Obama has fulfilled his promises to rectify the situation; if anything, he has only exacerbated the problems in an already tenuous economic situation… just as anyone with half a brain suspected he would in 2008. This should serve as a warning to future voters: the presidential election should not be decided in the same manner as a popularity contest. It makes a mockery of democracy.
Your placement of blame, in which you blame Obama in response to that man’s open letter, is so far off the subject, that if this were a race, you’d be so far behind, you’d think you were ahead there friend.
“No You Can’t”
Oh the irony..these same unemployed College kids are going to go out and support Barney Frank. Lol.. chickens come home to roost. What is it with college kids, and blind leftism?
clearly you never graduated high school…
Think about it this way, he is simply stating facts. Law school is expensive, the job market is bad, career services has suggested Linkedin, and he has a kid on the way.
The cost of earning a professional degree in this country is outlandish. As a current medical student, in 4 years I will be 100-150K in debt, and that’s as a single male, living on a budget. Law school, business school, medical school, it doesn’t matter. The cost of education is rising and will continue to rise. To bring Obama, politics, or even the individual into this argument is a unfair. The president doesn’t set the cost of education, political parties don’t have a stranglehold on professions, and the individual felt that getting a JD would be a good return on investment for him and his family. Unfortunately the investment is not panning out, and in most circumstances the individual takes the loss. However, as he pointed out the loss in this case hurts both him and the institution. So to prevent this loss to both parties, he proposes a solution that is beneficial to both.
How can you attack someone for wanting to provide for their family?
Touché, and as an unemployed 2010 grad from a Top 20 law school with +$150K in debt, I feel the need to correct some comments above…..
Loans:
Students have a 6 month grace period after graduation during which they do not have to make a payment- this applies to MOST, but NOT all of the types of student loans out there. Regardless of the type of loan, a person can apply- but is not guaranteed- a further forbearance upon proof of financial hardship or whatever the case may be. There are helpful payment plans that follow a slightly more complicated formula than the “15% of your income” one commenter mentioned, the idea is the same. However, these are only available for specific federal student loans- there’s a lot of different ways one can accumulate student debt that don’t qualify for the “student loan forgiveness” plans the federal government recently established.
Jobs:
To reply to a comment above, Army JAG is INCREDIBLY selective, you can’t just walk into a recruiting office and sign up. Same goes for all the legal arms of each of the military’s branches. There’s an intense multi-interview process that’s conducted on a strict timetable- in other words, they only hire specific times a year- and each branch hires something like 2% of the thousands of applicants that seek a position. So, contrary to Bobby above, chances are, you will not get hired if you’re applying solely because you’ve got nothing better.
The strict hiring schedule is not unique to military lawyer positions. Clerkships – positions at a court working with a judge- accept applications one year in advance to the start date for which they are hiring. These are EXTREMELY competitive positions- even for courts in less popular locales- i.e. Kalamazoo, Guam. Same story goes for a good chunk of the law firms – you apply as a 2nd year law student, essentially intern for the summer during which time they decide if they want to give you an “offer” for a position after you graduate and, in this economy, are lucky to get an offer and lucky to not be “deferred” to start working more than 1 year AFTER graduation. So, you essentially apply to big law firms 2 years in advance of when you’d hope to start & you have to go through usually 3 sets of interviews to get a summer position that is for all intents & purposes a 3-month interview for a full time position.
Likewise, nearly all federal government positions must be applied to a year in advance & are also very competitive.
So that leaves state gov’t and nonprofit orgs to look for jobs with much hope and relatively unrestricted by a rigid hiring schedule. Unfortunately, most state governments are under a hiring freeze and the nonprofits are, well, either cash- strapped or staffed with the lucky few grads who got jobs at firms but whose start dates are deferred a year or so. Deferment is a cost-recovery measure by firms who still want to hire these young lawyers, but can’t afford to pay the unnecessarily huge salary promised just yet (which is a whole other can of worms). In the meantime, some firms are offering deferred associates a stipend to work at a nonprofit org. In other words, free labor for the nonprofits, so why hire anyone new right now?
Grades:
Grading in law school is severely curved and the average grade on the curve varies amongst schools. Harvard’s is like an A, Suffolk’s is like a C, BU’s is a B+ and I imagine BC’s is probably in the B range too. So, “mediocre” is both a relative term and descriptive of most law students in terms of grades. Law school grading is determined by strict guidelines mandating professors only give a few grades outside the pre-established median. For example, a mandatory curve may require that 0-5% of grades be A+’s, 20-30% As & A-‘s, 40-60% as B+, 10-50% as Bs, 10-30% as B-, 10-30% as C+, 0-5% as D and below. What often makes one exam an A and another a B+ could come down a missing comma when professor’s are bound by the confines of the curve. And this curving also speaks to the image-puffing the schools do for ranking – “most of our students at B students” -but it also traps students from excelling by corralling everyone at an arbitrary median point set by the individual university.
Harvard students don’t get grades.
Can we PLEASE stop acting like the only legal employers are law firms, clerkships, gov positions and non-profits?? Recent and soon-to-be grads need to think more creatively and seriously look into in-house positions.
Yes, I know, what I just said is ridiculous and in-house positions are just cushy post-law firm gigs for those who can’t cut it as partners. … Except that is totally false.
As companies find themselves struggling in this economy, high law firm rates are one of the first things they want to cut. However, as almost every industry becomes more and more regulated, these companies still really do need legal expertise. And that is where our desperate, father-to-be, short-sighted 3L comes in. I think in the next few years, smart and creative lawyers will form a new trend of hiring younger lawyers in-house.
Looking at the job postings now as compared to this time last year or two years ago, I think the legal market is absolutely picking back up. And of all the people I knew over the past 2 years who went through 3L with no job prospects, about 99% of them have jobs now. It just takes a little bit more work. For the in-house positions, you have to job search outside of the normal channels. You actually DO have to network. You have to be open to talking to people – lawyers and business people – who don’t have hiring needs immediately, because while they don’t even know it now, they might realize a few months down the road that they really do need to hire a junior lawyer.
[Name Redacted], Class of 2011… we’ve all been there. You need to stop spending your time complaining and feeling sorry for yourself. Take all of that energy and focus on finding a job, because the classes of 2009 and 2010 have pretty clearly shown that it’s possible.
That’s a fine analysis, and it provides food for thought for anyone reading it. Thank you.
Having said that, based on bclawstudent’s letter, I’m approximately 100% certain that he didn’t even do the amount of research and due diligence before signing up at BC that you did to write your post. He made a bad investment, he wants desperately to believe that he was hoodwinked/defrauded/taken advantage of, and now he wants out at someone else’s expense. My 10 year old does the same thing when the objective facts don’t support his desires.
If bclawstudent feels that BC owes him a refund, it can only be because he feels he was deceived. He apparently believes that the school promised he would find a position to his liking if he graduated from BC. Yet no school makes a guarantee like that and survives. Not only does no school know the employment landscape 2 or 3 years out, but bear in mind that bclawstudent started at BC Law before the financial meltdown. When he was sitting through class in late 2008 and early 2009, did he pick up the Journal or IBD and consider that maybe, just MAYBE the environment might be changing around him?
If he’s ready to quit without graduating, then he cannot press for a refund because he hasn’t held up his end of the bargain either. I won’t speculate on why he can’t find a job when other classmates have presumably been able to, but I have my suspicions about his academic performance and interpersonal skills.
To Tom in VT:
If you bothered to check, I’d say most of his classmates don’t have jobs either. Which was the point.
While certainly there are various personal reasons people do not find employment, those are quite different than why 60% of his graduating class has yet to secure employment.
At that point, you can’t help but wonder about what is the value being sold to law students as consumers. The reality was when he was checking out schools, the market was stable, firms had laid off relatively few if any people, summer classes were still strong. I’m not exactly sure what further research would have shown him or me or anyone else who came to law school.
And I’m speaking as someone who found a job. But I’m not silly enough to not see how limited the options truly are for my classmates.
We can attack someone who isn’t just trying to provide for their family, but is trying to avoid responsibility. What he is doing is no different than if he had gotten a girl pregnant and then refused to have anything to do with her. He is irresponsible plain and simple.
I have sympathy for the law students at BC who have come, worked hard, made law reviews and such and still cannot find jobs. They have done all they can with what BC has provided and are up the creek. I do not, however, feel sorry for law students who came to law school, didn’t pay attention in class, got mediocre grades and then complain that in a tight economy they cannot find a job.
I understand the frustration, but there are for more worthy students at BCLS who should get a refund, pregnant wife notwithstanding if BCLS is going to give them out.
Govt. subsidies (loans to students in this case)drive up demand and thus prices (the cost of an education).
Get the market out of education and the housing market then let the market clear.
Heartless? A free market works now let it work. The legal market is more of a cartel-like structure whereby people are prevented from representing others without a lic. yet people can go pro se on their own.
President Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer without attending law school.
The ABA and the AMA are both illegal cartels.
A Response to the Open Letter to Dean Brown:
The administration of Boston College Law School is deeply concerned about the job prospects of our students and our recent graduates. The job market in the legal profession and beyond has been severely affected by the current economic downturn, which has resulted in one of the most difficult employment climates in the past 70 years, not only for BC Law, but for all schools across the nation.
We’ve been working diligently to design new programs and expand opportunities for our graduating students. Some of these opportunities include the Career Partnership Program, through which our alumni have provided paid fellowships in private practice; the Judicial Fellowship Program, through which we have partnered with the Massachusetts Superior Court to provide 10 paid fellowships to assist justices; and through the Law School’s support of public interest funding, both through the Law School Fund’s financial match of the PILF summer stipend program (156 students received these stipends in 2010, up from 120 in 2009) and through support of several post-graduate fellowships in our clinics and in programs designed by our graduates.
Our Career Services staff works tirelessly to bring employers to campus to host programs such as this week’s Government/Public Interest interview program. They have read and revised hundreds of resumes and cover letters, answered countless “quick questions,” and prepared students thoroughly through mock interviews. They held over 2,000 individual counseling appointments for students during the last academic year—these have increased substantially through the recession. The staff has also reached out to our alumni to help support our students by mentoring, counseling and identifying employment opportunities. In addition to providing individual assistance, they have organized more than 90 Career Services informational programs over the last year alone, many of which included committed alumni volunteers.
Recently, in recognition of the increased demand on the Career Services office and the current economic climate, the Law School has funded an additional Career Counselor while open positions are being frozen or eliminated in other departments.
These are difficult times in our country. The challenges our graduates face are unprecedented. As a Jesuit law school we are particularly concerned with the well being of our students. But no institution of higher education can make a guarantee of a job after graduation. What we can do is provide the best education we possibly can, and work together to provide as many career opportunities as possible. The Law School and the Career Services office are committed to working with each student individually for as long as necessary to help them find employment, and we encourage anyone concerned about their current situation to contact the office and schedule an appointment.
Our hearts go out to our students during this difficult time. By working together, however, we can do everything possible to help them find meaningful employment in their chosen field.
Translation: “We’re sorry things are financially painful and that the cost of education is so high. Please come to our offices so we can talk to you, but you should not expect tuition reductions any time soon. An education is valuable, but may not be financially valuable, so Caveat Emptor.”
For what it’s worth, Dean Brown and BCLS sent this reply to faculty yesterday:
A Response to the Open Letter to Dean Brown:
The administration of Boston College Law School is deeply concerned about the job prospects of our students and our recent graduates. The job market in the legal profession and beyond has been severely affected by the current economic downturn, which has resulted in one of the most difficult employment climates in the past 70 years, not only for BC Law, but for all schools across the nation.
We’ve been working diligently to design new programs and expand opportunities for our graduating students. Some of these opportunities include the Career Partnership Program, through which our alumni have provided paid fellowships in private practice; the Judicial Fellowship Program, through which we have partnered with the Massachusetts Superior Court to provide 10 paid fellowships to assist justices; and through the Law School’s support of public interest funding, both through the Law School Fund’s financial match of the PILF summer stipend program (156 students received these stipends in 2010, up from 120 in 2009) and through support of several post-graduate fellowships in our clinics and in programs designed by our graduates.
Our Career Services staff works tirelessly to bring employers to campus to host programs such as this week’s Government/Public Interest interview program. They have read and revised hundreds of resumes and cover letters, answered countless “quick questions,” and prepared students thoroughly through mock interviews. They held over 2,000 individual counseling appointments for students during the last academic year—these have increased substantially through the recession. The staff has also reached out to our alumni to help support our students by mentoring, counseling and identifying employment opportunities. In addition to providing individual assistance, they have organized more than 90 Career Services informational programs over the last year alone, many of which included committed alumni volunteers.
Recently, in recognition of the increased demand on the Career Services office and the current economic climate, the Law School has funded an additional Career Counselor while open positions are being frozen or eliminated in other departments.
These are difficult times in our country. The challenges our graduates face are unprecedented. As a Jesuit law school we are particularly concerned with the well being of our students. But no institution of higher education can make a guarantee of a job after graduation. What we can do is provide the best education we possibly can, and work together to provide as many career opportunities as possible. The Law School and the Career Services office are committed to working with each student individually for as long as necessary to help them find employment, and we encourage anyone concerned about their current situation to contact the office and schedule an appointment.
Our hearts go out to our students during this difficult time. By working together, however, we can do everything possible to help them find meaningful employment in their chosen field.
As a recent graduate from the George Washington University Law School and father of several young children, I can completely identify with this guy. I remember attending more than one orientation where the dean indicated that the median income upon graduation was $125K, regardless of whether you were in the 25th or 75th percentile. When I entered law school, there was still talk of the days of the $80K sign-on bonus for new grads.
I have years of non-legal work experience and a stellar resume. I’ve even testified before Congress. Yet, I cannot find a job as an attorney which will begin to service my law school loans.
I was one of the few in my class who was fortunate enough to work full-time while attending law school, albeit in non-law jobs. This allowed me to minimize my debt and even get a 401K. Notwithstanding, I graduated with $100K in debt, and I recently had to cash out my 401K in order to survive unemployment for a few more months.
Now I find myself in a far less financially secure position than if I had no J.D. at all. Without my law school education, I could support my family on an annual salary of $45K on the east coast. However, because of my J.D. debt, I am required to have a job that will pay a minimum of $90K in order to service my loans. As a young attorney, though, I’m worth no more than about $60K.
I value my educational experience at George Washington University, and notwithstanding my current predicament I am hopeful that I will find a job that will support my family.
I have no illusions about ever getting a tuition refund. But if given the choice to give up my JD and Bar membership in exchange for a refund and better job security, the choice would be easy: Give me job security and take back my J.D.
Ditto, when I applied to law school BU had all over their rankings that their law grad’s average starting salary was like $160K, which of course I enrolled for more than the $$. But I felt it was a sure bet investment seeing their stats on starting salaries & job placement. And maybe it still is, ask me whenever I happen to get a job. In the meantime, BU offers similar programs as the response letter posted above from BC’s administration- it helps, but a $4,200 “public interest fellowship” paid over the course of 6 months- barely pays for gas and groceries for me & my husband. It’s not just whining- it’s a financial reality, it’s a matter of surviving each month out of the red while living bare bones & facing a very scary amount of loan debt made scarier without the job security or starting salary notions available that initially encouraged us all to invest in law school.
There isn’t much I wouldn’t give up for job security. I worked all through college and have worked 60 hours a week minimum since I graduated in 2003. I got very lucky when I bought my house for next to nothing and was then able to sell and pay off my student loans before the bottom fell out. The ironic thing is that I don’t even use my degree now, but having it makes all the difference. I wouldn’t trade in that degree for job security, because without it, there would BE no job security. Just try getting a job that meets the needs of your family these days without one. With so many degreed people out of work and in the job market, it is ridiculously competitive. it doesn’t matter what field it is in. Just having it lets you compete. Wasting four years on a degree and then dropping out without one is just plain stupid. He should finish school and then get whatever job he can while he waits for the one that will move him along in life.
First of all, I wonder what he put in his personal statement to get in to law school or if anyone read it — likely just the LSAT and GPA went in to the decision to admit him. Going to law school expecting riches in return is not a good idea… you can make money selling cookies and candy. I have been a paralegal for 20 years and every time I time I think of going to law school, I read something like this to deter my decision. I hope he finds what he’s looking for. My undergraduate degree is in English literature and I valued the education more than the income it generated — indeed, I made more money as a waiter and bartender than I did in any other professional (including more than some attorneys). No degree or loans required for that job.
Is BC still a Catholic university? The posts on this page make one wonder what that distinction even means.
I don’t have much sympathy for this 3L or any others in his situation. While many law schools have continued to provide inaccurate and misleading post-graduation employment data, there have been conspicuous, even notorious, sources on the internet such as blogs and studies that debunk such notions to anyone with a modicum of common sense, intelligence and self awareness.
Common sense alone should inform applicants to law schools and law school students that if BigLaw only has X positions per year, and Y number of law school graduates are generated each year, that the prospects for high paying position after law school are nowhere near what the most law schools present them to be.
They should researched the actual job and career path prospects carefully, not take what a party with conflicted interest presents to them as the holy grail. They should also have a clue as to how to interpret the statistics presented to them and understand the concepts of median, mean and mode, although in all fairness, most people make this mistake. If they did they would realize that the most common pay for employed lawyers out of law school is way below the median, and that the “average” (mean) salary is nearly the least common pay for law school graduates.
is this guy a moron? the world is an imperfect place. life is hard. things don’t work out. sometimes you set the tivo and it doesn’t record. wah. get over it and move on. why does the world owe you a free pass? cut the victim bit, bust your ass, get good grades, make yourself a commodity and shut yer excuse maker. nobody twisted your arm into becoming a lawyer or is contractually bound to employing your whiny keister. the sooner you figure that out and get righteous with it – the better chance you have of avoiding darwin’s law of natural selection
Wow. The author is an idiot who expects the world to cater to him for his poor decisions. He makes a mistake and expects to have no responsibility to it. Welcome to life, [name redacted]!
I feel for him. My husband & I are in the same boat. Our parents pushed us into law school & told us to just sign on the dotted line when it came to loans because “you’ll be able to pay for it when you get out of school.” Yeah right! We should NEVER have listened to our parents!
In the end, we will have paid $600,000 for a useless education (assuming we find a way to actually pay it back). It’s such a racket. Needless to say, we both did GREAT in law school, but we have not been successful in passing the bar exam (note: working 2 jobs while trying to study is NOT a great idea, but we had to do what we had to do to pay our bills). I have NO idea what we’re going to do now. Sallie Mae has both of us on speed dial, so we get a call every 1/2 hour of every day.
But hey – at least I’m losing weight since we can’t afford to buy food! I’m considering stripping and drug dealing to pay off Sallie Mae. (not really, but it would help!) For our parents – you got what you wanted – we went to law school. Now they get to live with the fact that they will never have grandkids!
The reality is that even if BC and other law schools were honest about employment statistics, the vast majority of students in law school would still have come. Most of us came with this grand idea that we would come here, study hard, get great grades and find the perfect job. Sure stats might tell us that 50% of us won’t get jobs at all after three years of law school – but that surely means the other 50% – not me! People in law school generally are not used to being in the bottom half of their class or struggle to do anything. That’s how we got here in the first place. But the reality is, law schools set a good % of students up to fail. That’s the function of the curve – to say that there are others who do this better than you do. The bad thing is now those getting jobs aren’t just the top half. They are the top 10 – 20%. Which means 80% of those every year are struggling to find reasonable employment.
I implore any 1Ls reading this, if you finish this school year and are in the bottom 50% of your class, consider leaving and not wasting your youth on collecting insurmountable debt! Unless of course you don’t care about the money, aren’t paying for law school yourself or aren’t interested in making money upon graduation.
It’s just a reality today. If you go to BC and you aren’t in the top 50% of your class (or higher), you will not be getting a biglaw firm job and will struggle to find any employment. Look at the 3Ls who stand before you now. Get out while you can.
Whew, looks like I dodged a bullet by leaving after 1L year. Hope you all do eventually find something!
The real culprit here is the federal government, which has guaranteed or offered loans with few effective limits and without any meaningful underwriting. This has permitted educational institutions – and in particular huge profit centers known as law schools – to continually raise their tuition at rates much higher than inflation – to the point where in any economic downturn – including this one – the law school investment in most cases is simply irrational from an economic perspective. If the federal government participated in the student loan business in a drastically reduced fashion (or better yet, left it altogether), the law schools then would have to do what they have refrained from doing the last 25 years, that is, make hard economic choices. Some would fail. There are of course numerous vested interested that would fight mightily against any meaningful public reduction in the student loan scheme. But it surely ought to happen.
By the way, although tuition was back in the day more reasonable for my top 10 law school, I absolutely abhorred the thought of debt and worked for three years after undergraduate school, saving virtually every thing I could to write checks in full for tuition. I wanted above all else flexibility in choosing a job after law school, and did not want to be bound by golden handcuffs. I grew up poor in a single mother home. The idea was to get out of poverty, not go to school to stay in it. The bottom line is that I hated debt then, and I do now. And I am concerned that we have a generation of people who simply don’t realize how toxic debt can be, especially with student loan products that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
What an absurd solution to your problem! How about you invent a device that also returns the knowledge that you have learned in your classes, too? On the other hand, inventing such a device will give you a job. There, problem solved! Does that sound absurd? Now you know what absurd sounds like!
As a successful lawyer that graduated in a FAR WORSE legal market (I passed the TX bar in November of 2008 as the promised jobs from your 2nd year internship were suddenly taken away), I take issue with several things being thrown around.
First of all, if you want to become a lawyer, go to law school. That is the only reason people should go to law school. If you went thinking it was your ticket to riches, you did it for the wrong reason. That being said, know what you are getting yourself into if and when you do decide to go to law school. Yes, there were more 6 figure jobs 5 years ago when I started law school than there are now but the vast majority of lawyers, even back then, didn’t start there. Further, if they did, most are working the amount of hours that a person with two jobs does. If you bought into the fact that you were 100% going to work your butt off and be in the top 10% of law school and score a job like that, you have another thing coming. There is no way to determine how you are going to do in law school until you get there.
Next, if you are sitting in the middle of law school and you don’t have a job lined up, don’t start (or add to) your family. Even if you did land the 150K job, working tons of hours can’t be good for your family dynamic.
Here is anoter idea. Don’t go to a top private law school if you don’t want the debt. Most law schools get you to the same result, a chance to sit for the bar exam. I went to a law school that certainly wasn’t a top 20 but I managed to get a scholarship, maintain that scholarship, pass the TX bar and eventually the AZ bar. I might not be able to say “ohh look at me I went to X law school” but I certainly can say “ohhh look at me I am 27 and don’t have a cent of law school debt”. I sent my resume out everywhere, put it on city resume banks, etc. and as the legal market crashed, I (as well as my entire class that wanted to be a lawyer) found myself employed. It didn’t start off pretty and it certainly didn’t pay 150K but it was a job. It was experience. Now I find myself in a large firm, making what I should make, working 40 hours a week, doing what I love (and what I went to law school for)…being a lawyer.
Life takes unexpected turns. If it wasn’t the economy it could just as easily been something else that prevented you from getting that job after getting into all that debt. A car accident, failing the bar, disease…Whether it be law school, or making any other major life decison. You have to think it through and know what you are getting into. If you didn’t weigh your options before you decided to take a leap, you really shouldn’t expect people to feel all too sorry for you.
2008 Grad has the best comment so far. The subtext buried in the mystery author’s letter is that he apparently realized part way through law school that he didn’t actually want to be a lawyer. Therefore he wasn’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that goal. He was looking for an easy path. Also, mystery author, buck up. It’s October. Go network or something.
What’s really interesting about this whole story is how much high-and-mightyism it is evoking. What does that say about the profession?
I find it amusing that so many people keep showing up with the same regurgitated words of wisdom about taking responsibility for your actions, etc.
I find it even more humorous that people like “2008 Grad” see fit to brag about their professional success and bootstrap story. Who cares???
99% of the people commenting are too blinded by their own egos to realize the letter is tongue-in-cheek. How do we know the author doesn’t blame himself for his decisions and the outcomes he’s dealing with? Why doesn’t he have a right to be frustrated? Where does he say he’s going to sue the school? Where does he accuse the school of fraudulent statistical reporting? If he was even remotely serious about pushing for a refund, why would he redact his name?
Regardless of who is to blame for how he got there, the guy finds himself in a tough spot. If you can’t feel for him, you have no heart.
The last time I checked, venting is a legit use of the internet (especially when done in a humorous manner, like this).
Boo hoo!!!! Welcome to the world of debt in which students across the country attempt to follow thier dreams and in turn get into debt. Many a person has found a way to manage a way out over time!
“Scared, nervous…. etc….” Welcome to life! SUCK IT UP, figure it out! DONT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT!!!!
If all else fails.
Join the military!!!!
-HOOAH!
join the military? lol. to just put off your debt for how long?
“I implore any 1Ls reading this, if you finish this school year and are in the bottom 50% of your class, consider leaving and not wasting your youth on collecting insurmountable debt!”
But if the bottom 50% dropped out, half of the remainder would once again be in the bottom 50% ! So they would have to drop out. Then, of the remaining 1/4 of the original class, half of them would be in the bottom 50% …
Until it was down to 2 students. Then they could just flip a coin. But then the lone survivor – could she brag about being in the top 50%
I think we all know after first year, grades and such matter far less. Maybe a better way to approach it is if you think you have no prospect at the job you came here to get based on your grades, you should leave. The after effect to other students should really be irrelevant in that decision.
Education is an investment, and all investments carry risk. The School should not refund his money.
You could farm yourself out as a temp paralegal in NYC and make money sometimes/often more money than as a newly minted lawyer out of a lower tier law school than Boston College. The legal employment agencies in NYC are very good and BC’s rep doesn’t stink there. You can even work inhouse and work your way up to where you really want to be.
The author obviously knew what his debt to income ratio was when he made the decision to start a family. It’s irresponsible to now turn to the school to help ease that burden.
If everyone sought refunds for degrees in fields that they were unable to gain employment in, schools may as well just stop charging tuition.
Boy, I sure wish I could go get a refund of every service that didn’t meet all my expectations. What did you think you were getting yourself into? If you were even slightly financially responsible then you would have looked at the bottom line of what this education would cost you. Going to law school is committing to pay the equivalence of a house payment for the next ten to twenty years after you graduate, only without the house. It is the reason lawyers charge so much. That and the price of malpractice insurance. The higher the cost of the education to provide a serves equals higher costs to the customers of those professionals.
Asking for a refund of tuition simply because your wife is pregnant isn’t an excuse. I remember when we had our first child. I was pretty nervous too. However, in reality it didn’t really make my life that much more expensive. Hardly the thing that would cause me to drop out of school to focus full time on raising a family. Now, if your wife had some sort of rare disease which was costing $40,000 per month in treatments and you were being buried in medical bills, that would be different. As it sits, you are stressed out about not being able to find a job and being able to afford the lifestyle you have become accustomed to.
Here is my advice. Consider what kind of job you would get if you dropped out out school without a degree. Now go get that job and start figuring out how to pay your bills. Get with a financial adviser who can teach you about consolidating your student loans into something manageable. You are going through what every new graduate goes through. I know law school graduates who were so picky about the job they took that they spent years being unemployed before finally just biting the bullet and taking the clerk job or $45K paralegal position.
Man up and do what you need to support your family. Your unborn child doesn’t need to have the example of a father who cowered from his responsibilities and tucked tail to run away the second things got stressful. Start making a plan now and you’ll be fine. You are not the first law school graduate with a young family and lots of responsibility. That is what you agreed to when you signed on the dotted line each time you applied for more funds to continue going to school. I can’t say it enough how irresponsible it is of you to think it can all just go away because you have buyer’s remorse.
You would make a really lousy lawyer. What would you do in court when the going got tough? Check to see if that plea deal is still on the table since it looks like you are about to lose? Think about the other side. Would you let your opponent take a plea deal you offered at the beginning now that you are about to crush them? I think not. Man up. You are an adult now. Act like it.
This guy is nothing but a big, big baby. He needs a pack of diapers and not a tuition refund. Does he realize how lucky he is to be in law school, earning a law degree and then have the opportunity to do something AMAZING and WONDERFUL with his life?
Forget the money. That will come. But from a seasoned attorney, I know there are plenty of websites that advise you NOT to go into law unless 1) you are savvy at business; 2) you think you can run a business; 3) you work like a dog (please do not ignore your family, tho) and 4) you can make intelligent, well informed decisions and assume a business risk (obtaining a law degree).
NO, i do not feel sorry for him and his whining. He paid his dues. He is starting out badly tho by thinking he can ask for a tuition refund in lieu of a law degree. What statute or case law did he learn THAT from? None, thank you.
He needs to put on his big boy pants and get on with it. He CAN earn big bucks once he gets his law license. He CANNOT expect someone to hand it to him. His parents should have told him that and not his law school.
Law Schools get to market and puff. He should have learned that.
I am a lawyer and I love it.
oh, and unlike the other weenies up there that post comments without idenity, you have my real name, and my email is joanne@denisonlaw.com and i have a website at http://www.denisonlaw.com
if you’re a law student or recent grad that needs help stepping up to the band wagon, just email me.
I feel sorry for all folks graduating from or going into law school. For a start – could any business on the planet offer $100K starting salary to anyone? It doesn’t make sense. It’s overinflated promises at overinflated prices.
I’ve seen many of my friends jump on that band wagon. When I tell them they are nuts, they’ll defend the idea that they will get a $100K starting salary straight out of school like it is scripture. They have to beleive it.
Most of my lawyer friends are now unemployed, or have mediocre law jobs working for non-profits (we are talking $40-60K here). They live in small 1br apartments till the age of 40 when their loans are worked down. The trade off between owning property or owning lawschool debt is correct. So when you grow up do you want a house or do you want to pay for expensive law-school ad campaigns that sucker the next naive kid in to fuel the vicious circle?
My one legal friend who seems to be OK is a paralegal who fights overtime claims from poor Hispanic immigrants working in slaughterhouses. The other cons poor hispanic immigrants into thinking he can get them a greencard – just the way he learned at lawschool and the cycle continues.
As a 2008 graduate of another Boston Law, I studied 65-70 hours a week for three years in a row, and then through the summer for the bar. I graduated with 150k or so in debt. A week after the bar, the stock market crumbled.
I thought of education as an investment, it’s reasonable, most people do. Infact, every single person I asked for advise on the matter told me as much. These were smart people, successful people. In fact, one was a former partner at a large law firm. It is generally considered a good move. We get told every day that America will fall behind if we don’t educate our populace. But it isn’t a good move. Surprise!
The statistics on salary from these schools are generally misleading, see Slate magazine for a reference. And the law on bankruptcy is abhorrent and changed while I was in school. As I just mentioned around midnight the other night, to my saint of a girlfriend — while crying of course — it would have been a better investment to have taken that 150k, bought a Ferrari, and immediately driven it into the Charles river. Your employment prospects would be higher, after all you could get a job as a cabbie, and the debt might, just might, be dischargeable. The truth of the matter is that in good times law school is a scam for at least 50% of the people who go — of course, those 50% don’t realize any of it until they are in school and already owe 75k. And even then, they have no idea of the scope of the scam. Even financially successful lawyers hate the law. Look at the comments here, these people think you worse than a pedophile. In bad times like now, law school is an even worse scam than that.
It is a tragedy that people who are taking on debt and working their tails off, are being treated worse than credit card abusers, people with gambling problems, real estate speculators, pretty much everyone else in society. The simple fact is that bankruptcy should deal with educational debt. Period. Full stop. It doesn’t. Surprise! Now you know — you are educated and second class. In India, people like you are known as “untouchable.”
Besides bankruptcy, I would also suggest the employment statistics be fixed. I didn’t expect to make 160k a year, but I thought it reasonable to make 65k for the trouble, time, work involved, and the added stress. I was wrong. The statistics are skewed, the one person in your class who earned 165k skews the rest of the numbers up… significantly.
To 2011 here is some advice from a recent graduate who understands your position. I suggest that class of 2011 read between his Dean’s words. His dean doesn’t care, he already has your money. Furthermore, the truth is, he doesn’t understand your situation — he has no clue about what it is like and how soul crushing it is. He doesn’t practice law. He hasn’t in decades. He thought about creative uses for his degree and decided to make 100’s of 1000’s selling you a worthless piece of paper. He has no idea how soul crushing it is. And I mean that literally, soul crushing.
The only thing you can do is tell your wife that your BC dean won’t help you, that you are going to be poor for the rest of your life. You are going to have to tell your wife that although you have ambition and intelligence, a willingness to work hard, that your dean, and really, all of the other non top 10 school deans in this country, don’t care. You wanted an education, and there it is — every one is trying to sell you something… even in the dignified halls of BC law.
If your wife hasn’t moved on to the used car salesmen making 10$ an hour who was smart enough not to go to a top 25 law school, (or 100 for me), you get to explain the soul crushing aspect. You get to tell your girlfriend to abort the baby. That’s right. Your dean wants you to abort your first child. I hope you aren’t religious.
Be prepared for tears. If she is still with you, and I almost guarantee she won’t be now, and you won’t want her to be if you actually love her, the two of you get to move in with your parents — because as I mentioned before, you can’t support yourself. Get comfortable there, take out the trash for your frail mother every now and then, you are going to be there for a long time.
Did you cover indentured servitude at BC law? Probably not. I thought it was outlawed. Guess what — it wasn’t. And guess what else — you aren’t that high in society. You are now less than an indentured servant. I say less, because indentured servants were only enslaved for 7 years. You, my friend, “can think like a lawyer,” and thus, you will be free in 30 years because you will have to extend your loan payments out that far if you earn anything less than 65k a year… have a fun life living with mom and pop. The average salary in America hovers around 35k.
But here is the good news, if you are so lucky to develop a gambling problem while you are filling the free time you will have looking for a job, take comfort that you can “restart life” again after bankruptcy, as society wants you too. You can wipe all of those debts away, except of course, you will still be in debt for your education. Long, long after Dean Brown’s children get into BC law at a reduced rate, long after they begin work at Skadden & Arps skewing the statistics some more — you will be in debt. Enjoy.
I feel deeply for you, your fellow class mates, and anybody in MA who did not get into Harvard Law. I’m one of them. There are 1000’s more. I spend my free time telling a good friend who borrowed to get an LLM not to kill herself once a week. We aren’t alone, and neither are you.
There is a phrase for this, I believe they call this… winner-take-all. Be happy you won’t be able to have children, so they won’t have to go through this as well.
As a 56 yr. old woman who began cc while living in a homeless shelter 7 years ago, who went on to graduate summa cum laude, who completed her MA with a 3.92 GPA, who now is willing to wash dishes and clean toilets I empathize; however, life is all about choices and risk. There are no guarantees we will land jobs for which we invested years of hard work, not to mention substantial loans I CHOSE to go to school, albeit the State University of Albany, NY. I CHOSE to live on student loans, and although I am under-employed and certainly not employed in a field that can use my literary, or my oral and written communication skills, I know I invested wisely. I don’t want my money back and I don’t want to whine like the name-redacted gutless writer of this letter.
Some quick thoughts:
1. The name redaction was likely done by Eagleionline and not by the student in question, who, to my knowledge, has never disavowed writing the letter and in fact takes full credit for it. So stop telling him he’s a coward. Also, the letter here is a reprint and I believe he actually did send the original letter to Dean Brown. So stop telling making accusations that he published it here instead of sending it to Dean Brown.
2. By all indications, the student in question is not stupid enough to think that Dean Brown is going to give him a refund. What he did was bring a lot of attention to an issue many of us care about and a reality roughly 60 – 70% of students graduating in seven months face. So, I would recommend everyone jump off their respective soapboxes, pedestals and high horses and chill the f*** out. The attention this has received might save a few people out there considering law school as an option from taking on $180K in debt (or more by the time they graduate since tuition hikes haven’t slowed while we have been in law school).
3. The comments here only further convince me that most people who get law degrees are total pricks. They are either miserable and unhappy or want everyone else to be so they can feel better about their miserable unhappy lives. It’s no damned wonder the legal profession has such a crap reputation. It’s full of egomaniacal nutjobs who feel the need to jab jab jab at other people constantly. If you’re so damned happy in your life and your career, why are you not out enjoying your fulfilling life and not getting caught up in this “nonsense.”
Please, do all of us who are actually in law school trying to figure our lives out a favor and save it. I’d frankly rather be unemployed than work with any of you self righteous wankers.
@2011: The writer chose to redact the name; it was not an editorial decision. The writer contacted Eagleionline editors and asked us to post the letter on our website on conditions of anonymity.
If the writer chooses to reveal the letter on other places and discloses his/her name, s/he has the freedom to do that. We don’t control those revelations.
It’s one thing to expect a 150K+ job after graduating. But is it really that unreasonable to expect not to be making the same pay (or less) you made whilst working during undergrad? The system is untenable and near collapse.
As an unemployed teacher, I can assure you that the teaching openings have also become few and far between. When I graduated in 2009, there were dozens of openings, though most were one-year contracts because everyone knew budget cuts were coming. This year, I found 4 openings. There are gluts of both lawyers and teachers.
I always thought student loans survived bankruptcy too, but then a few weeks ago I saw the below case report in Mass Lawyers’ Weekly, so I guess there are exceptions to everything.
Note that the BK Court said “her ability to repay the debt was unrealistic in light of her age, inability to pass the Massachusetts bar examination, difficulty finding employment, and other burdens”:
Bankruptcy – Student loans – Undue hardship
Published: October 4, 2010
Where a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge discharged a debtor’s student loan obligations, the loan obligations would impose an undue hardship and thus the discharge order was not erroneous.
Affirmed.
Hardship
“This appeal arises out of an adversary proceeding filed by Denise Bronsdon (the ‘Debtor’) seeking to discharge her student loan obligations to Educational Credit Management Corporation (‘ECMC’) on the grounds of undue hardship pursuant to §523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court initially concluded that repayment of the student loans would impose an undue hardship on the Debtor and discharged the loans. On appeal, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the bankruptcy court’s decision and remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court to consider the impact that participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (the ‘Ford Program’) would have on the undue hardship analysis. On remand, the bankruptcy court concluded that the Debtor’s failure to participate in the Ford Program was insufficient to overcome a finding of undue hardship under §523(a)(8), and again discharged the loans. ECMC appealed. …
“The Bankruptcy Code does not define ‘undue hardship’ and courts have struggled with its meaning. After several decades of case law interpreting this term, essentially two tests have emerged – the so-called Brunner test and the ‘totality of the circumstances’ test. As the First Circuit has noted: ‘[N]ine circuit courts of appeal [] have followed the Second Circuit’s test set forth in Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987) (per curiam). This is a tripartite test, requiring that the debtor show inability, at her current level of income and expenses, to maintain a “minimal” standard of living; the likelihood that this inability will persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; and the existence of good faith efforts to repay the loans. … A facially different test is the Eighth Circuit’s totality-of-circumstances test, which would have courts consider the debtor’s reasonably reliable future financial resources, his reasonably necessary living expenses, and “any other relevant facts.” …’ Nash [v. Conn. Student Loan Found. (In re Nash), 446 F.3d 188, 190 (1st Cir. 2006)]. Although the First Circuit acknowledged the two approaches in Nash, it declined to adopt formally a particular test for determining undue hardship, and it remains an undecided issue in this circuit. …
“In the First Decision, the bankruptcy court applied the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether excepting the Debtor’s student loan obligations from discharge would cause her undue hardship. The district court determined that the issue of the appropriate test was immaterial as the result would be the same under either test. On remand, the bankruptcy court again declined to endorse the Brunner test. On appeal, ECMC urges the Panel to formally adopt the so-called Brunner test. …
“Having considered the various tests used to determine undue hardship, the plain text of §523(a)(8), and further recognizing that the majority of courts in the First Circuit adopt the totality of the circumstances test, the Panel declines to adopt the Brunner test as requested by ECMC. The Panel is persuaded that the totality of the circumstances test best effectuates the determination of undue hardship while adhering to the plain text of §523(a)(8). …
“ECMC’s primary argument on appeal is that the bankruptcy court failed to adequately consider the availability of the [income contingent repayment plan] in its determination of undue hardship under the totality of the circumstances. … Although courts applying the totality of the circumstances test have treated the ICRP differently, the weight of authority is to treat the ICRP as one of many factors to consider in evaluating the totality of the debtor’s circumstances. Thus, a debtor’s eligibility to participate in the ICRP may be considered by the court when applying the totality of the circumstances test, but it is not determinative. … As set forth below, we conclude that the bankruptcy court properly considered the Debtor’s eligibility for the ICRP as part of its examination of the totality of the circumstances. …
“… Significantly, the district court did not adopt a per se rule that the availability of a zero payment ICRP should automatically result in a finding of nondischargeability. In its decision, the district court held that ‘[t]he decision whether to discharge [a student loan] in a case where the debtor is eligible but declines to participate in the ICRP must be the result of an individualized analysis in which the ICRP is given weight but for which no particular outcome is prescribed.’ … Thus, although the district court held that the bankruptcy court is obligated to consider the Debtor’s eligibility for participation in the ICRP, it also acknowledged that eligibility alone did not mandate a particular outcome in the undue hardship analysis. … The district court concluded, therefore, that the ICRP must be considered as a factor in the undue hardship analysis and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for proceedings to do so. …
“On remand, the bankruptcy court clearly stated that, despite the Debtor’s eligibility for the Ford Program, her ability to repay the debt was unrealistic in light of her age, inability to pass the Massachusetts bar examination, difficulty finding employment, and other burdens. These circumstances are amply supported by the record and are appropriate factors to be considered under the totality of the circumstances test. Thus, we conclude that the bankruptcy court adequately considered the Debtor’s decision to forego enrollment in the ICRP as a factor within the totality of the circumstances.”
Ingrid Hillinger would like to make you aware, as she does all her Bankruptcy students that discharging student debt in bankruptcy is near impossible. This case is an anomaly and no one should think this will be allowed except in unusual circumstances.
One case does not a policy make.
First, she is awesome for adding her perspective on this!
Second, all the quasi-legal talk on this blog and I think you guys kinda missed the point: a lot of you are getting an awful deal! So much talk about caveat emptor and such, the sad reality is that your law degree just isn’t what many of you think it is and the debt that comes with it is extraordinary in size and in how badly it is skewed against the borrower. I guarantee you that if you called up career services before signing up and asked them very intelligent questions, they still wouldn’t tell you that small firms in NY pay as little as $25K. Thats not the average, but most look to hire a first year associate at no more than $35K, I once met an experienced attorney who worked for five years and got offered $60K. If you are taking on $100K+ in debt then you are really putting yourself at risk of default. Also keep in mind that your rent in a city like New York will probably start at $1K/month for a one room studio in the bad part of town and the landlord will expect you to make $40K before even showing you the place. (For those of you who are ready to pounce on me for saying that you will be living in NY, keep in mind that this is one of the few places where the jobs are still available).
Another fable that they love over at Career Services is that you can start at a small firm and move on up. Sadly, this is not reality. Big firms want latteral hires, small firms will pay you in cheese if they can, and oh by the way the Access Group and Sallie don’t care if you’re out getting experience. Career Services is very sadly out of touch with reality on these issues and I’m glad that this kid called them on it! and if you need more proof then just check out the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?src=me&ref=homepage.
Why not wait to go to professional school until you have some money saved up and you don’t have to borrow so much in loans???!!!!! Failed investment for sure. Loans are not free money. You have to pay them back regardless of of your state of affairs. And nobody said that you had to go be a lawyer after you went to law school – find another job in a different field! I got a job outside of my field working (manual labor) 70-80 hrs/wk and paid off my college loans in half of the time because I put 50% of my take home pay towards them every week. Yeah, you have to tighten your belt to do it, but it’s not impossible, and it’s not like it’s some kind of terrible hardship. Yeah, it sucked sometimes but you know what, those were my responsibility and I took care of it. And I found out that I love my job and working on my feet and with my hands all day! So stop whining, stop playing the victim, and get out there and work. Adjust your lifestyle. Support yourself! Do what it takes to run your own life! Jeez. Bunch of babies.
Well aren’t you special? Congratulations on how well organized your life is. You’re right. At 22, people should save up $120K before going to law school. You’re a genius.
With all that whining can’t pay back tuition, it sounds like another bailout from taxpayers on the horizon for unemployed grad. Why can’t people take full responsibility for every decision they make? What is wrong with the US?.
True, but I take exception to the underlying assumption that life comes with entitlements or that there are any guarantees in life. You may not do well in law school, pass the bar, like the legal profession or have a job. The law school has no control over such things and I doubt it promised him anything other than an opportunity to make something of himself. Really, what was the guy going to do if he didn’t go to law school – get an MBA? That market is dead too. And why is his wife pregnant when he’s in school without a job? I waited until I had a job before we even got married. Maybe he should stop whining and consider a trade school. Time to turn the lemon into lemonade. Man up for god sake.
Dear Mr. I Want A Handout,
It’s called capitalism. Get over it. Perhaps you should have considered your options two and half years ago when the job market was equally as bad if not worse than it is today. As an aside, who in his right mind starts fathering children while being unemployed. Pure irresponsibility. Babies are expensive in case you haven’t heard. I expect that type of behavior out of a certain spectrum of society, but certainly not someone who was smart enough to get into BC. First, you need a plan. Asking a guy who’s best achievement in life was being “interim dean” might not be the best start…..Cheer up, necessity is the mother of invention. I’m sure you’ll figure something out.
I’m all for this guy asking for his money back, from an economic standpoint. It probably took him 1-2 hours to write that letter. If he values his time at $100/hour, then he just put up $200 on a $125k bet.
That being said, the law school definitely should not refund his money. The marginal change in their rankings from going from 30% unemployed to 29.5% is not worth $125k in lost tuition money.
I’m sure you learned this in your first year contracts class, but in case you forgot–caveat emptor pal.
Wow. I hope you’re not a BC Law student. Caveat emptor is generally a property concept you moron – not contracts. The purchase of real estate is not covered by the warranty of goods and thus buyer beware became entrenched it the common law. And the common law approach to caveat emptor is typically not even relevant today with most purchases of real estate, services or goods because of things like the UCC or implied warranties of fitness.
Maybe before you graduate and start studying for the bar, you should brush up on your 1L concepts a bit more.
I think this fellow did a positive and creative thing in writing the open letter.
How else might one solicit such useful commentary about one’s attitude and situation? It makes no difference whether he includes his name or not, he can read all of the responses.
Maybe the school could consider hiring him to make career services more “amazing”.
BC Law had ~7,000 applicants each of the past few years for a class of ~260 students. It could easily fill the class with quality students who don’t need financial aid, and thus, this problem would be solved. If law schools simply reviewed applicants financial information before making admissions decisions (thereby ending “need blind” policies), the schools could probably eliminate this problem altogether since there are more families willing (and able) to finance law degrees for their children than we even realize.
It seems ironic that law schools are being chastised on this message board for giving individuals with less money an opportunity that otherwise wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for financial aid programs. I can’t think of many private entities that would lend $100k+ on an unsecured basis to students with very little money or assets, and even if they did, interest on the loans would be ridiculously high and would cause serious long term problems to students regardless of their starting income after graduation.
I think it is worth recognizing that law schools are faced with the difficult challenge of balancing the benefits of providing individuals equality of opportunity in the application process (regardless of financial status) with the unfortunate and very sad realities that seem to result in some cases – especially in this latest recession.
Have you heard of the federal government. They are the lenders, not BC Law or any financial institution. The government now requires you borrow your financial aid from them.
So BC Law has no reason to discriminate based on wealth (of parents) because they do not lend the money. There is no ethical dilemma. Though certainly what you suggest would present one – only letting rich white kids who might not really be as smart as some of the poorer ones come to BC Law. Just because your mommy and daddy can buy you an education doesn’t mean you’re smart enough for anyone to want you in their law school. There are very few people I know in law school who have parents that can afford it. The elitist sentiment of your proposal aside, I’d prefer BC and other law schools continue to provide educations based on merit, thanks.
To your point, this argument may (unintentionally) sound in elitism, but it seems as fair as the argument law schools don’t care about their students’ future or that law school (in general) is a bad investment — two common themes on this message board. That said, I certainly agree with you that admissions should be based on merit.
The imbalance between the amount of legal services a society needs and the number of lawyers graduating has been a problem for many years. I am very surprised that people are still taking the risk, given the cost of tution, especially when you can get an undergraduate degree in operational statistics/computer programming and start at 75-100K.
I have made the recommendation at my gov agency that we hire unemployed attorneys for contract administration jobs. We need you and you are smart. start looking, it won’t be 150k but it will definitely uitlize contract law skills and have a future. http://www.usajobs.com
I like dg’s comment btw.
I feel for the guy, I really do. I very easily could be in his exact shoes had I not gone to law school straight from college. I was competitive for going to B.U. and was deferred. I am glad I went to the law school that I did when I did.
Here is a personal anecdote, for what it is worth (probably not much).
If a guy like me, who graudated in 2006 and really likes the law, is bjectively “better than” (as measured by GPA, LSAT scores, and law school admission) 7/8s of all other law students and still has to rely on connections, luck, having three bar memberships, a relatively strong econmony to get the important first job, and four years of practice before he finds a job that makes him happy, than what realistic chance do these poor colleagues of mine have in these troubled times? I make less than the mean salary figure my law school published when I was accepted, and bless them, that mean salary figure was probably inflated but still substantially less than 100k a year.
If you cannot score more than 158 on the LSAT after studying hard for it, do not go to law school. (I scored a 162 and still only barely made it into the top half of my class.) If you are actually worried that there is a substantial chance you will not be able to keep up with your classmates or pass the bar on the first try, and by substantial I mean greater than like 10%, then don’t do it. You will have no fun competing against people who are flat out more suited for this kind of work.
Remember that your alternatives, while seemingly bleak, are actually pretty good. If you are having second thoughts, then most likely you would be better off devoting more time to dating while you’re young, finding a great mate, taking a job in a field you find interesting or do not mind, and then working to achieve a household income of 90K or its present day equivalent over the next 5 years. Do that, and you’ll be richer than 80% of the households in the country.