• News Ticker alerts

The publication Business Insider has published a list of American law schools with the worst employment records -- that is, percent of 2011 grads that were unemployed or seeking employment nine months after graduation. The data are from the Wall Street Journal. Fourth worst is San Diego's Thomas Jefferson School of Law: 31.36% were unemployed or seeking employment in the period. Only 27% were employed in a job requiring a JD. Some 55% passed the bar the first time, versus the state average of 72%.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 16, 2012 @ 12:17 p.m.

Thomas Jefferson is being sued over their misleading stats right now.

There are simply WAY TOO MANY ABA law schools in America at around 200 (Plus 20 other non ABA LS's in CA).

I have said numerous items that at LEAST 50% of all ABA law grads will never work as an attorney. That is only going to get worse, as even legal services are being outsourced to India and their countries.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 16, 2012 @ 12:21 p.m.

Barry LS is a recently granted ABA LS, read the stats on it.

TJLS is the Barry LS of CA.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 16, 2012 @ 1:12 p.m.

SurfPup: There is no doubt that there is a surfeit of lawyers, but schools keep cranking them out. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 16, 2012 @ 2:02 p.m.

They keep cranking them out b./c they have no "skin" in the game. They engage in moral hazard.

They produce a product that will never pay for the costs it took to produce it. If you produced a loaf of bread that costs $20 to make and bake, how many do you think you would sell???? Not many. But the money spent to make and bake that $20 loaf of bread is being paid by the gov, not the baker. So the baker have no reason to stop making those $20 loafs of bread. Same with LS. This is a MAJOR problem IMO with America today, allowing SCAMs, and that is exactly what this is , a scam, to go on- costing over $1 trillion in student loans today-the majority of which will never be paid back-ever. The money is not there and never will be. WIll never be repaid, b/c it is a factual impossibility.There was a guy in NYC that had $450K in student loans.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 16, 2012 @ 1:14 p.m.

SP: How many future law enforcement workers are among those now in excessive abundance? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 16, 2012 @ 1:19 p.m.

SP: Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa has an unemployed recent graduate rate of 40.65%, worse than Jefferson, and an employment rate of 17%, also worse than Jefferson. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 16, 2012 @ 1:54 p.m.

Whittier LS in CM is one of the lowest ABA LS's in the nation, but as bad as they are they are still above TJLS..........in fact there is a TV show on Discovery Chanel called "Overhaulin" where they rebuild vintage muscle cars in 7 days, and one of the shows hosts graduated from Whittier LS, that is so funny to me....NOW, having said that, if you can pass the Bar exam, in any state, you have earned the right to be a lawyer and it matters not where you went to LS.........There is a local guy here in San Diego that went to a non ABA LS, which 99.99995 of you never heard of, non accredited by the ABA, and he is a top rated lawyer.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 16, 2012 @ 5:48 p.m.

The whole history of our banking system, our governments, our subsidized corporations revolves around moral hazard, and decision makers paying no attention to it because of OPM. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 16, 2012 @ 5:50 p.m.

SP: I'll bet that top-rated lawyer with a degree from Nowheresville Law School advertises heavily on TV. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 17, 2012 @ 12:11 a.m.

No, he does not advertise. He is a serious lawyer, and pulled down a $5 million trial verdict/judgement against Orange County, that grew to over $10 million on appeal (once a verdict has been rendered it accrues interest at 10% compounded even while on appeal), and over $12 million after his attorney fees were added in. Very sharp guy. So it doesn't matter what LS you go to, if you are smart and serious you can make things happen with one good case.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:38 a.m.

You must be talking about Shawn McMillan. He is the lawyer who won the case against OC social services where they took the woman's daughters away from her and the social workers refused to allow the mother to have them back after the court said she could have them. Western Sierra law School. if I remember correctly.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 17, 2012 @ 2:10 p.m.

Yeah, I thought so. The award was the giveaway. I knew the name, but I did have to look at his CBA page to get the name of the law school.

0

Visduh Oct. 17, 2012 @ 5:02 a.m.

This is sad, because that law school was doing a decent job some years back, under its former name. Now it has succumbed to the same abuses as Bridgepoint and its schools, taking a bunch of government money without taking steps to insure the employability of its grads. The rest of the picture hasn't been reported. Just how high is its dropout rate? I'd guess that it is also high. Will the bad publicity sink this school? It should, but just because it should put it out of business doesn't mean it will.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:23 a.m.

Will the bad publicity sink this school? It should, but just because it should put it out of business doesn't mean it will.

New York law School, a lowly 4th Tier LS, was SUED by former students just as TJLS was, for fraudulent employment statistics, didn't hurt them one bit, their applications are going up every year. Last year they received 6,000 applications for a 250 seat entering class..........bad publicity doesn't hurt the law school scammers. The ONLY thing that will shut them down is when they have to start financing their own paper, not the US gov, or the true default rates force the pols to get serious about lending $150K to people that will have no way to ever repay it. Ever.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 17, 2012 @ 6:56 a.m.

SP: Your observation is not only true of law schools, it is true of colleges and universities as well. Some very successful people came out of tiny liberal arts colleges that few ever heard of. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 17, 2012 @ 6:58 a.m.

Visduh: You are posing some good questions. In short, is it a degree mill? Best, Don Bauder

0

Duhbya Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9 a.m.

Perhaps this is their credo:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Thomas Jefferson

0

Don Bauder Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:51 a.m.

Duhbya: You mean if they had studied Jefferson more closely, they wouldn't have taken his name? Best, Don Bauder

0

Duhbya Oct. 17, 2012 @ 12:48 p.m.

Man, I wish I knew (what I meant to mean). This current political climate, in addition to laying waste to my normally robust business, has rendered me absurd. Or should I say more so than usual. I might have meant they're perfectly content to line their pockets while fiddling with the lives of their "clients". As der Mittster has said "I might not remember exactly what I said, but I stand behind it 100%, whatever it was".

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:59 a.m.

Duhbya: You think you are confused. What about everybody else? Best, Don Bauder

0

Duhbya Oct. 18, 2012 @ 12:56 p.m.

Not much room left in this life raft, I assure you. I apologize for indirectly attempting to derail your thread. At least that's how it reads to me, in retrospect.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:55 a.m.

Tom: Yes, SurfPup must be talking about Shawn McMillan. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:47 a.m.

Tuition at 4th Tier New York Law School= $1,750 per credit hour (more than Harvard LS), x that by 90 credit hours, and then add in $5K per semester for books and other fees and the costs are close to $200K, NOT counting living expenses, add in another $30K living expenses per year minimum for NYC.

Tuition= $157,500........... Books & fees= $30K ($187,500)................ Living expenses= $90K ($277,500)............... == Total cost to attend a 4th Tier toilet LS= $277K....................... % who will NEVER work as an attorney= 50% minimum................ % who will be able to pay back the $277K, less than 5%............ probably closer to less than 2%.

The jobs are simply not there and the glut of newly licensed lawyers drives down the wages. And more legal jobs are being outsourced to India and other countries every day. In fact the University of Michigan LS, a top 10, one of the best in the nation LS, was allowing ON CAMPUS interviews for jobs in India supervising outsourced legal work. Pathetic.

It is a scam, just like Bridgepoint, and it won't last forever, it will collapse eventually.

http://www.nyls.edu/academics/graduate_and_certificate_programs/financial_services_ll_m/tuition

0

Don Bauder Oct. 17, 2012 @ 1:20 p.m.

SurfPup: Lawyers FACILITATE scams for their clients (often by relying on the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law). Now it appears they are PULLING scams. (Of course, it's not the first time lawyers have pulled scams, either.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell Oct. 17, 2012 @ 6:30 p.m.

It makes sense for the State Contractor's Licensing Board to require all plumbers to have law degrees and to prosecute unlicensed plumbers working without law degrees. If law graduates could obtain jobs as plumbers, by forcing non-law school graduates out of the trade, then most of them could repay their student loans. Jefferson should make all law students complete vocational training courses in plumbing so they have a skill to fall back on after graduation. No guy in India is ever going to fix a toilet in the U.S.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:03 a.m.

Jefferson should make all law students complete vocational training courses in plumbing so they have a skill to fall back on after graduation. No guy in India is ever going to fix a toilet in the U.S

Even though you post this in jest-it is actually a great idea.........

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 1:14 a.m.

Burwell: Good thinking. Yes, plumbers' jobs cannot be exported to India. Nor can taxi and bus drivers' jobs. It looks like both our presidential candidates want everybody to have a college degree, utilizing Pell grants and piling up debt to achieve it. Law schools can do their part. Some lawyers are good at plugging leaks. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:22 a.m.

Don Bauder, FYI, Romney has said he would send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board; that includes the Department of Education. Taking it one step further, he has promised he would “either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it (the DoE)a heck of a lot smaller". And despite his recent claims of support for the Pell Grant program, Romney has also said he supports the Ryan budget – which would cut Pell Grants by over 40% next year alone, eliminating aid for more than 1 million students. On September 19th, Univision quoted Romney as saying: "And so the best thing I can do is not to [say], "Hey, I'll loan you more money." I don't want to overwhelm you with debts. I want you to make sure you can pay back the debts you've already got and that will happen with good jobs." Here's an interesting story in today's LAT: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1018-student-debt-20121018,0,2115478.story

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 9:03 a.m.

tomjohnston: Romney wants to make small cuts, including in education. But he won't touch the big one: the military. He will even expand spending there. All that means is that he is in the pocket of the defense/aerospace companies, as was George W. Bush. I hope both sides hammer on that in the debate Monday. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:22 a.m.

I will disagree with your comment in one small sense. I don't believe that Bush was in the pocket of defense/aerospace. I personally think he was just too damned stupid. I believe in that sense, he just did what he was told to do, probably mostly by Dickhead Cheney. I will never vbelieve that Bush had/has the cognitive skills to understand a lot of what he was doing and that he was just blindly following along acting as if he were the "great decider". Just my opinion. Opinions vary.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:01 a.m.

I think your description of himself as a "great decider" is on the money......I think Arnold also fits into what category. They don't really have the brain power and think their "leadership" is all that is needed. While true to a certain degree there are big limits on "leadership":, especially if the ship is upside down or going the wrong direction.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 2:46 p.m.

Not arguing there. Bush was in the pocket of Cheney, who was in the pocket of the defense/aerospace industry. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:12 a.m.

Tom, taking student loans out to pay for schooling that is way over priced is a disaster- for the students AND taxpayers who will get stuck with the bill.

The reason college is SOOOO expensive today is b/c of federally guaranteed student loans. They are the reason costs have been going up at 2-3 timnes the rate of inflation.

The schools have no skin in the game and the students have no idea if they will mnake money in 4 years, if they will be in any position to pay back the loans, even if they want to.

99.5% of students who default on SL's do NOT do so b/c they don't want to pay, they default because they don't have the means to pay, through no fault of their own. They are given a con job by rip off schools, like National U and U of Phoenix, AND students GET STUCK HOLDING THE BAG, not the scammers. it is the ciulture of our gov today-rip off the poor and middel class tobenefit the connected few.

Everyone in gov knows it is a scam, but they don't care b/c it is OPM, specifically taxpayers, who will end up covering the moral hazard that made these scammers right.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:30 a.m.

You get no disagreement from me. Perhaps something I wrote made you think otherwise?? We were lucky. Neither my wife nor myself had to worry about paying for school, though admittedly even a school like Berkeley was much much less expensive 45 yrs ago. And thankfully, we were able to make sure neither of our daughters had to worry about paying foe school, but I know they are in the minority. What would your solution be??

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 2:49 p.m.

tomjohnston: It looks like you want SurfPup to come up with the solution. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 18, 2012 @ 3 p.m.

Not at all. surfpuppy619 has been very vocal about what he thinks the problem is. I'm just curious as to whether or not he has an idea of what the solution is.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 4:08 p.m.

tomjohnston: I think the SurfPup will give you an answer. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 2:48 p.m.

And it appears that both presidential candidates want to expand Pell grants. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 3:08 p.m.

The solution is to make these schools carry all or a large portion of the paper needed to pay the tuition costs.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2012 @ 4:10 p.m.

SurfPup: Having the schools carry the paper is an intriguing idea. It would flip the economics of the problem. The schools would be forced to accept accountability with their own skin in the game. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 18, 2012 @ 5:16 p.m.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Do you think that having the schools carry the paper will really bring down the cost of tuition that much? To me, that solution doesn't address issue of what you called "schooling that is way over priced". It doesn't matter who provides the loans if the tuition costs stay the same. It would simply make it harder to get loans, which could actually result in higher tuition costs. It would seem to me that solution would simply lead to much tougher requirements to get the the loans in the first place and would really have a negligible affect on the actual cost of tuition.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 6:36 p.m.

Yes I do, 100%.

Once the students whom the LS's admit using their OWN paper can't get jobs and repay THEM--the LS- , then they will not be letting on as many students, and will be much more selective about whom they admit, because they have skin in the game. Right now they don't care who they admit, they could careless because if the student defaults they have no negative impact whatsoever, if they were carrying that loan then they WOULD care.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 6:37 p.m.

The tuition would drop b/c the schools would be much more frugal, and responsible, wit their expenses, and that would affect tuition.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 18, 2012 @ 7:35 p.m.

Or it could have the opposite affect. Tougher qualifications for loans could take affect, which would likely result in fewer loans being offered. That would result in less total tuition and fees being collected, which obviously means a drop in revenue. There would only be two ways to increase revenue. Lower the necessary loan qualifications to increase the amount of people attending or raise tuition and fees to increase total revenue per student.. It happens every day in all kinds of businesses. And I am not referring to just law schools. I am referring to the broader spectrum of student loans. I would have to believe that there are far more student loans, and thus loan defaults, to "regular" colleges than there are to just law schools.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:40 p.m.

Yep, all true- and if that happens the students most likely would NOT pay the tuition and go elsewhere causing the school to close, and if tuition were too high that it could not be paid back then that too would force the school to close-or lower costs. Either way that is how the free market works, those with a workable model and viable model survive, and those that don't will close.

50%, maybe even 75%, of the ABA law schools could not survive in a free market. They would have to lower costs or go out of business, and that is a good thing IMO, b/c the alternative is for the nations taxpayers to get stuck with $250K tuition bills that CANNOT be paid back b/c the ability to pay it back is not, and never will be, there.

A $250K in loans, amortized at 8% over 20 years is $2,100/month, or $25K/year AFTER TAXES. $25K per year after taxes is conservatively $40K before taxes. So your nut is $40K before even a DIME goes into your own pocket for a 4-year and legal education. The problem is the median pay for a lawyer out of a 50-200 ranked school is about $40K-$50K, and about 60-70 hours per week. So that kind of debt cannot be paid back at current wage levels. Fact.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:12 a.m.

What's happened to law schools has happened to higher education in general. Few remember that in his famous "military industrial complex" speech, Eisenhower warned of higher education getting on the government dole. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 19, 2012 @ 10:16 a.m.

"Yep, all true- and if that happens the students most likely would NOT pay the tuition and go elsewhere causing the school to close, and if tuition were too high that it could not be paid back then that too would force the school to close-or lower costs"

My point exactly, but for all colleges, not just law school. Having the government in the college loan business is not the problem, so having the schools carry the loans is not the solution. The problem, the reason why kids have to borrow so much and then can't earn enough to pay it back is that it costs too damn much to go to school. I would have to do some research to find out exactly how much we paid, but I know that it costs more for 1 year at UCLA that it cost for my wife and I combined for 4 yrs at Berkeley. We've put 2 kids thru UCLA, undergrad and grad. Our youngest got her masters this past spring. If she had been an incoming freshman this year, fees and tuition alone would have been almost 13K. To solve the problem, you need to correct the root cause. The root cause is not how much the schools charge. The root cause is how much they spend.I readily admit that I don't have a solution. If I remember correctly, there was a $650 million cut in state funding to the CSU system for this year,. There were tuition hikes obviously meant to offset part of that. But cut's in funding aren't the only problem. I read recently that the dean of school of engineering at UCSD is leaving to take the dean of engineering job at a school in Australia. He was making more than $350k at UCSD. The new president at SDSU was hired in last year at $400k. A study last summer showed In 2010-11, median compensation for public college presidents was $421,395. That's just salary. throw in housing, retirement and bonuses and you're talking closer to $600k. And some of them make a whole lot more than that: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/05/22/10-Insanely-Overpaid-Public-College-Presidents.aspx?index=1 Like I said, I don't have the solution. But it seems to me that when you get to the root of the problem, their expenses, compensation might be a good place to start.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 10:50 a.m.

Still, the professor making $350K is making less than the football coaches at big universities, who rake in 5 times more than that, or more. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 19, 2012 @ 1:18 p.m.

That's true. But you have to look a little deeper than that. In 2010, Cal’s head football coach Jeff Tedford ranked as the highest paid UC employee, at $2.3 million. Sounds outrageous doesn't it? But if you looked a little deeper, you would see that his base salary was less than $240k. The rest of his income came from money coming from grants, private gifts and endowments. He earned over $1.5 million from television, radio or other media shows; making speeches, other public appearances, running youth football camps. According to the president’s office at Cal, none of that money comes from Cal. Most people think it's the schools that pay all of that money; they just don’t understand that the highest paid coaches draw their salaries almost entirely from athletic department revenue, private gifts, sponsorships and donations. Our niece went to ASU and still lives over there. She said she can't even count how many times that the newspapers over there have given the breakdown of the coach’s salaries, both ASU and U of A. She says it all there in black and white. All of there compensation coming from either school come directly and only from money generated by the athletic department. The rest of it comes from the same sources I mentioned above. And still people complain about how much coaches get paid. Now, we have had this discussion here before and you have basically said that you don't believe it. So I would like to point out that the TV contract that the Pac 12 signed earlier this year guaranteeing each of the 12 schools in the conference about $21 million. That's $21 million ONLY from TV broadcasts on Fox and ESPN. According to documents released earlier this year, UCLA and USC had athletic department revenues in 2010-2011 of $66 million and $84.19 million, respectively, remembering of course that USC is not a public university. Think that's a lot? Texas took in a little more than $150 million in 2010-2011. By contrast, SDSU’s athletic department took in just over $45 million last year. But don’t confuse revenue with profit. According to a USA Today story, based on public schools' 2010-2011 filings with the NCAA and DoE, only 22 Division I athletic programs are operating in the black. Now I'm sure that you are still at the very least skeptical, but the info is out there for any and all to see. It's a requirement of the DoE that this information is filed on an annual basis. To be specific: Under the Federal Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act all coed post-secondary education institutions participating in a Title IV, federal student financial assistance program and have intercollegiate athletic program are required to file annual reports with the Department of Education on athletic participation, expenses, revenues and staffing for both men's and women's teams.. Whether you like the salaries or not, the programs pay for them, not the schools general fund.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 9:45 p.m.

tomjohnston: Yes, all that money raked in by the Cal football coach does not come from the university budget. But you have to look at opportunity costs. Much of that money might go to academics if it didn't get steered to the coach. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 23, 2012 @ 8:38 a.m.

Don Bauder, Tedford’s compensation package is typical of major sport coaches at most major colleges. Less than $240k of his salary came from the UC system. The remainder, in this case in the neighborhood of $2.1 million, came from television, radio or other media shows; making speeches and other public appearances, running youth football camps, endorsement deals, etc. In other words, its money he earned away from his responsibilities as Cal’s football coach. For example, many major school coaches have their own weekly show, either TV or radio and sometimes both. Many of them are hired to do commercials for businesses in their cities, banks, sporting goods stores, restaurants, car dealers, you get the idea. In the off season for their sports, some of the most successful ones are hired to give motivational speeches. I went to one by Mike Krzyzewski a couple of years ago, for example. Two or three years ago, Coach K and 3 other coaches did a commercial for guitar hero imitating the famous Tom Cruise scene from Risky Business. I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but it was reported they each were paid more than 50K. I could go on ad nauseum, but my point is this. Why would a coaches extra income, earned from those types of endeavors, be “steered” to academics. Even more to the point, why should it. I would be interested in hearing your logic for that.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 19, 2012 @ 1:46 p.m.

Ok, I just looked this up. In 1968, our base tuition and fees were $160 per semester. Depending on whose formula you use, in 2012 dollars that translates to somewhere between $830 and $1070 per semester or $1660 and $2140 per year. Resident University Tuition and Student Service Fees at UCLA for next year are estimated to be $12686. According to their website, SDSU undergrad California resident Basic Tuition and Fees are estimated to be $7076. That’s just tuition and fees. Somewhere in the last 40+ yrs, something has gotten royally f**cked up.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 9:48 p.m.

tomjohnston: No doubt, higher education costs have soared -- much needlessly. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 20, 2012 @ 12:14 a.m.

.According to their website, SDSU undergrad California resident Basic Tuition and Fees are estimated to be $7076. That’s just tuition and fees.

My first semester at SDSU in 1982 was $150 for the semester. $300 per year.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 20, 2012 @ 7:43 a.m.

SP: Even after inflation adjustment, SDSU costs have soared. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 20, 2012 @ 10:13 a.m.

Yes, adding in 3% per year to $300/year tuition, the costs have been going up at probably 3-4 times the rate of inflation.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 23, 2012 @ 7:05 p.m.

Somewhere in the last 40+ yrs, something has gotten royally fcked up.**

Well, I can tell you EXACTLY what went wrong and how it got ROYALLY F'd up. Public unions. In the case of CC, CSU and UC it was the prison guard unions. Their % of the budget in 1968 was about 3%, while CC, CSU and UC were about 12-13%. Today the prison budget is about 11% and CC, CSU and UC is about 7%. The money that USED to go to higher education, which promotes GOOD jobs and a much higher tax base from those GOOD jobs now goes into the pocket of HS edcuated gov employees who have comp packages well over $200K with OT. THAT is the problem, in a nuthsell. And IT is the problem. You can educate the states citizens so they start good companies with the potential for good high paying jobs that produces good tax revenues, or you can squander it to HS educated gov employees who produce nothing and who produce no direct increase in the tax base at all. OK my rant is over.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 24, 2012 @ 9:07 a.m.

Not sure where your information comes from, but the last time I checked, in the 2012-2013 budget that Moonbeam signed into law, budget for Higher Educations is a total of $23.1 billion, with $11.6 billion from the general fund and $11.5 billion in other funds, and the CDRC budgethas a total funding of $9 billion, with $8.8 billion coming from the general fund and $201.6 million from other sources..I believe the total budget is just under $91 billion, so you can do the math on the percentages.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 24, 2012 @ 8:01 p.m.

Looks like I was off, the info I used must have been from a few years ago, but Higher Education is not getting 23 billion form the general fund ( ($23B w ;

http://californiacorrectionscrisis.blogspot.com/2012/01/correctional-budget-2012-2013.html

In fact Clown keeps cutting higher education while giving prisons huge increases in pay and benefits, in a depression.

0

tomjohnston Oct. 25, 2012 @ 11:09 a.m.

"but Higher Education is not getting 23 billion form the general fund" I didn't say it was. Perhaps you should read my comment again. What I said was: "budget for Higher Educations is a total of $23.1 billion, with $11.6 billion from the general fund and $11.5 billion in other funds" "the info I used must have been from a few years ago" Well. I don't know what to tell you surfpuppy619. The State Department of Finance has archived the budget documents from next years budget all the way back to the 2000-2001. These are the enacated budgets and you can find everything from the complete budget summary documents(800+pages) and the highlight documents to the changes, and even the voting history. In none of those years did the CDRC exceed the Higher Education budget. If you search a little online, you can find the budgets back into the 80's. One of the things that I do pay attention to, in terms of the state gov't, is the budget process. Going back probably 20yrs, I usually look at the documents as soon as they are available. They have been available on -line for several years but back in the day, you actually had to get copies from Sac and you had to buy them, or at least pay the copying fee is how they phrased it. I can't remember a single instance in at least the last 20 yrs in which the CDRC budget exceeded the Higher education budget. I would be interested in where you might have gotten you figure. BTW, I am not disagreeing that Higher education gets too little and prisons get too much. But why both education and correction costs are so high is a completely separate issue.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:09 a.m.

tomjohnston: Law schools would be weaned off the government dole. What's wrong with that? Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston Oct. 19, 2012 @ 9:36 a.m.

I'm sorry, but again I don't follow your comment. I am speaking in terms of higher education in general, not laws schools in particular. My only reference to law schools was that my belief is that there are more defaults in 4yr schools than law schools so the problem extends to the broader spectrum of higher education, not just laws schools. I waasn't excluding law schools, I was including ALL schools.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 10:47 a.m.

Agreed, tomjohnston. As I said in another post, the problem in law schools is just a microcosm of what plagues higher education in general. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 20, 2012 @ 12:17 a.m.

My only reference to law schools was that my belief is that there are more defaults in 4yr schools than law schools so the problem extends to the broader spectrum of higher education, not just laws schools. I waasn't excluding law schools, I was including ALL schools There are some HBCU's where the true default rate is over 50%, the TRUE default rate not the gamed rate DoE uses (the DoE/Gov uses what is known as the "co-hort" default rate, which is LIMTED to defaults during the first 2 years out of school- and remember it takes 9 months for a SL to default).

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:05 a.m.

Agreed, SurfPup: As I state below, if the schools carried the paper, fewer loans would be made, enrollments would plummet and some law schools would go out of business. This would be good. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:02 a.m.

If the schools had to carry the paper, the amount of student loans would drop, probably precipitously. Enrollment would drop. Some law schools would probably go out of business. These would be positive corrective steps. Best, Don Bauder

0

ImJustABill Oct. 22, 2012 @ 9:15 a.m.

I think the parallels to housing are pretty strong and the solutions I would recommend are similar.

Big flaws in the logic used to jusity all the loans and federal programs. Cause vs. correlation flaw in logic. In both cases the basic reasoning is "X is good. (X = home ownership or more education). Therefore more of X is even better. Therefore, we should do whatever we can to encourage more X. Therefore the federal government should provide or facilitate easy loans to people so they can afford more of X.".

At the same time, as has been discussed often in these forums, the financial sector has not been properly regulated to prevent excessive risk-taking at big financial firms. And the student loans have these weird exceptions (e.g. no loan forgiveness at personal bankcrupty) which also encourage the financial firms, and schools, to take short term risks.

All these policies have clearly created bubbles in student loans and tuition. The only question now is do we have a catastrophic crash or a more controlled crash. We really should stop adding fuel to the bubble now.

I would do the following:

  • Remove loan forgiveness exception for bankruptcy - doesn't seem fair.
  • Gradually start raising interest rates for federal student loan programs. Eventually phase out federal student loan programs.
  • Start putting pressure on universities to lower or at least freeze tuition rates (threaten federal research grant loss if necessary)
  • Start investigating trading in student-loan based securities. Based on the housing scandal, it's pretty much a sure thing that there are some risky and/or deceptive practices.
0

Don Bauder Oct. 22, 2012 @ 10:57 a.m.

ImJustABill: Yes, the parallels with housing are stark -- both in the creation of the bubble and the dangers thereof. Your suggestions are provocative ones, but there is a problem: politics. Both presidential candidates seem to want more college grads and more Pell grants. Can you see a politician wanting to cut Pell grants? I do think that an investigation into the entire student loan problem, including related securities, is necessary, and politically doable. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 26, 2012 @ 7:52 a.m.

OK, Don, tell me what YOU think!!! In fact you should do an article like this one for local schools like TJLS, Natioonal and Phoenix'

5 Ways the Student Loan Bubble Mirrors the Housing Crisis

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/10/25/5-Ways-the-Student-Loan-Bubble-Mirrors-the-Housing-Crisis.aspx#KTtMll1voBiJh0Gv.99

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/10/25/5-Ways-the-Student-Loan-Bubble-Mirrors-the-Housing-Crisis.aspx#page1

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close