More impressive than being a ski bum in Vail. More respectable than following Phish around the country. More professional sounding than tennis pro at Club Med. More likely to lead to a job than occupying Wall street. More opportunities for drinking than working at Starbucks, Whole Foods, or Trader Joe's.
... but not that any of the above are a good reason to go.
Education costs are passed to students as state's cut funding for school infrastructure. This is happening in primary and secondary education.
This is why the right wing solution of cutting student loans is a joke. The reason the loans are necessary is the same reason as many of the other crisis that we face- they are right wing created in that they first cut education budgets at the state and federal levels, the cost of the cuts are then passed along to student as tuition hikes, and then they say that the loans are what is causing the problem that their own policies created.
Its classic Grover Norquist "starve the government" mentality.
The solution to the problem is a return of cheap education, which means a return to seeing education as a public good rather than a commodity like buying a car.
This is unlikely to happen given that both parties in the tank for large corporate interests and many voters do not even understand the problem.
I read several legal blogs. I am amazed, for example, that no one has traced the history of when the increases started to occur. It starts precisely in the 80s with Reaganism on the rise.
Nor, does anyone seem to trace for some reason the fact that education costs are so much lower abroad despite government subsidization.
Its like the health care debate where people believe erroneously that private health care is cheaper and provides more choice that public health care. But a comparison of both the public systems in the U.S. like Medicare and those abroad (e.g. Japan where its 7 percent of GDP versus the US where its 19) indicates this is all just make believe.
In short, yes, its overpriced, but why?
That's the question I would like the scam busters to start to understand. Trying to understand it as "too many student loans" again is complete denial of comparative analysis of education abroad and the cutting of school funding at the state and federal level.
To me at least, I will take all of this more seriously when people not only identify that they are hurting ("I am paying too much for education") but why ("This is because of education being treated as a commodity in the U.S.")
Reagan was only President for 8 years. Education prices have been rising for 20-30. These are PRIVATE institutions, most of the time...cutting state/federal ed budgets has nothing to do with this.
Also this 20-30 yr rise in prices coincides with greater govt involvement in education in the form of student loan guarantees, etc.
Yes it's all the "right's" fault-then why aren't your awesome liberal leaders even discussing the possibility of reforming the Bankruptcy Code to allow (again) discharges of student loans in bankruptcy?
Because BOTH parties are owned by the banksters, you dumbass.
it's also a black hole that sucks you in and takes over your life. And when you try not to think about it during Thanksgiving break, everyone who talks to you has to bring it up. "How's law school?"
I actually mentioned thinking about dropping out and my family broke into hysteria. They don't even pay for it. I'm doing it off loans and they were like "stick to it, you will regret dropping out. You'll be making so much money, and be a huge success."
Reaganomics long outlived Reagan, and has been informing government policy since the 80s.
"These are PRIVATE institutions, most of the time...cutting state/federal ed budgets has nothing to do with this."
Sigh. Here we go again.
(First, many are state-sponsored, but that's neither here nor there. As for the rest...)
I've tried to explain this on any number of education blogs, but the problem is, it's kinda boring, so nobody actually wants to pay attention and learn.
Most law schools are private NON-PROFIT institutions (IRS 501(c)3's, usually). I don't have time to explain this legal status - please look it up.
Non-profits DO NOT FUNCTION THE SAME WAY AS A BUSINESS. One could write a book on how non-profits differ from for-profits - and many people have. I don't have time to get into the complexities of governance, taxes, subsidies, assumed public benefit, etc. right now. Plesae look it up.
The important fact related to the above, however, is that GOVERNMENT FUNDING AFFECTS THE PRICES CHARGED FOR SERVICES AT NON-PROFIT INSITUTIONS - INCLUDING PRIVATE LAW SCHOOLS. The mechanism is complicated, so you might want to do a little research here too.
"Also this 20-30 yr rise in prices coincides with greater govt involvement in education in the form of student loan guarantees, etc."
It also coincides with declining government funding of education. Because universities are complex, declines in education funding as a whole impact law schools in direct and indirect ways; one of the indirect ways is that law schools become the "cash cows" for other under-funded parts of the univeristy.
"Yes it's all the "right's" fault"
Not entirely. Just very significantly.
"then why aren't your awesome liberal leaders even discussing the possibility of reforming the Bankruptcy Code..."
Many on the left are. You might want to look this up, too.
"Because BOTH parties are owned by the banksters"
Well, that's a glimmer of reason through the ignorance and misinformation. To an extent, yes - the whole process is corrupt, and a lot of the left is just as bad as the right. Although the right has been owned by the banks for a longer time - again, there's a thing called "political history" that you might want to do a wee bit of reading on. (And no, propaganda published by Regnery doesn't count.)
Ripoff.
ReplyDeleteLaw school is...
ReplyDeleteMore impressive than being a ski bum in Vail.
More respectable than following Phish around the country.
More professional sounding than tennis pro at Club Med.
More likely to lead to a job than occupying Wall street.
More opportunities for drinking than working at Starbucks, Whole Foods, or Trader Joe's.
... but not that any of the above are a good reason to go.
Education costs are passed to students as state's cut funding for school infrastructure. This is happening in primary and secondary education.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the right wing solution of cutting student loans is a joke. The reason the loans are necessary is the same reason as many of the other crisis that we face- they are right wing created in that they first cut education budgets at the state and federal levels, the cost of the cuts are then passed along to student as tuition hikes, and then they say that the loans are what is causing the problem that their own policies created.
Its classic Grover Norquist "starve the government" mentality.
The solution to the problem is a return of cheap education, which means a return to seeing education as a public good rather than a commodity like buying a car.
This is unlikely to happen given that both parties in the tank for large corporate interests and many voters do not even understand the problem.
I read several legal blogs. I am amazed, for example, that no one has traced the history of when the increases started to occur. It starts precisely in the 80s with Reaganism on the rise.
Nor, does anyone seem to trace for some reason the fact that education costs are so much lower abroad despite government subsidization.
Its like the health care debate where people believe erroneously that private health care is cheaper and provides more choice that public health care. But a comparison of both the public systems in the U.S. like Medicare and those abroad (e.g. Japan where its 7 percent of GDP versus the US where its 19) indicates this is all just make believe.
In short, yes, its overpriced, but why?
That's the question I would like the scam busters to start to understand. Trying to understand it as "too many student loans" again is complete denial of comparative analysis of education abroad and the cutting of school funding at the state and federal level.
To me at least, I will take all of this more seriously when people not only identify that they are hurting ("I am paying too much for education") but why ("This is because of education being treated as a commodity in the U.S.")
Put a lot effort into that post. LOL.
ReplyDeleteSubprime, how did I rip you off? I certainly didn't mean to.
ReplyDeleteYou said Law School is...
ReplyDeleteAnd I added "ripoff"
Meaning to say, Law School is A RIPOFF
Much love for Knut from Subprime
...in many cases, a punishment from God?
ReplyDeleteExcrementitious.
ReplyDeleteNando is...
ReplyDeletea whiner...
a broken record...
a big mouth...
poor...
lonely...
and most of all,
a copromaniac...
@ anonymous 11/14...Wow you are fucktard liberal.
ReplyDeleteReagan was only President for 8 years. Education prices have been rising for 20-30. These are PRIVATE institutions, most of the time...cutting state/federal ed budgets has nothing to do with this.
Also this 20-30 yr rise in prices coincides with greater govt involvement in education in the form of student loan guarantees, etc.
Yes it's all the "right's" fault-then why aren't your awesome liberal leaders even discussing the possibility of reforming the Bankruptcy Code to allow (again) discharges of student loans in bankruptcy?
Because BOTH parties are owned by the banksters, you dumbass.
it's also a black hole that sucks you in and takes over your life. And when you try not to think about it during Thanksgiving break, everyone who talks to you has to bring it up. "How's law school?"
ReplyDeleteI actually mentioned thinking about dropping out and my family broke into hysteria. They don't even pay for it. I'm doing it off loans and they were like "stick to it, you will regret dropping out. You'll be making so much money, and be a huge success."
In fact, I might write a blog entry about it.
@ Anon 11/27
ReplyDelete"Reagan was only President for 8 years."
Reaganomics long outlived Reagan, and has been informing government policy since the 80s.
"These are PRIVATE institutions, most of the time...cutting state/federal ed budgets has nothing to do with this."
Sigh. Here we go again.
(First, many are state-sponsored, but that's neither here nor there. As for the rest...)
I've tried to explain this on any number of education blogs, but the problem is, it's kinda boring, so nobody actually wants to pay attention and learn.
Most law schools are private NON-PROFIT institutions (IRS 501(c)3's, usually). I don't have time to explain this legal status - please look it up.
Non-profits DO NOT FUNCTION THE SAME WAY AS A BUSINESS. One could write a book on how non-profits differ from for-profits - and many people have. I don't have time to get into the complexities of governance, taxes, subsidies, assumed public benefit, etc. right now. Plesae look it up.
The important fact related to the above, however, is that GOVERNMENT FUNDING AFFECTS THE PRICES CHARGED FOR SERVICES AT NON-PROFIT INSITUTIONS - INCLUDING PRIVATE LAW SCHOOLS. The mechanism is complicated, so you might want to do a little research here too.
"Also this 20-30 yr rise in prices coincides with greater govt involvement in education in the form of student loan guarantees, etc."
It also coincides with declining government funding of education. Because universities are complex, declines in education funding as a whole impact law schools in direct and indirect ways; one of the indirect ways is that law schools become the "cash cows" for other under-funded parts of the univeristy.
"Yes it's all the "right's" fault"
Not entirely. Just very significantly.
"then why aren't your awesome liberal leaders even discussing the possibility of reforming the Bankruptcy Code..."
Many on the left are. You might want to look this up, too.
"Because BOTH parties are owned by the banksters"
Well, that's a glimmer of reason through the ignorance and misinformation. To an extent, yes - the whole process is corrupt, and a lot of the left is just as bad as the right. Although the right has been owned by the banks for a longer time - again, there's a thing called "political history" that you might want to do a wee bit of reading on. (And no, propaganda published by Regnery doesn't count.)