Parents kicking their children out of the home

[eavesdropper]

comment deleted by poster

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….[/quote]

scaredy, I am putting myself in their shoes. I’m back in school now, and figuring out the amount of debt that would be wise to incur.

The people in the articles that were cited were incredibly short-sighted. Based on your posts on other threads, I can’t believe that you would recommend that someone go out and purchase a house for which they had not studied the particulars of financing. At $200,000 to $350,000 (the amounts cited in the articles), we’re talking about the monetary equivalent of a house purchase. Yet none of these “professional degree”-seeking students had thought to figure out the terms of payback: the amount of the monthly payments and the length of time they would have to be made.

Even if these law school wunderkinds did manage to procure a $160,000 per year job right out of law school, it would have been difficult to handle the payments on $200K to $300K of debt on the roughly $8,000 per month take-home pay. That kind of student debt translates into payments of $3,000 per month (38% of $13 income) to $4,000 (50%).

And forget the employment numbers the schools were selling (yes, selling! All school have huge marketing budgets, especially law schools.) I can’t remember a time since I was going to school in the 1970s when there was a really good employment market for newly-graduated lawyers. Even in the best of times, you have to be in the top 10% of your class in a top tier school to be called in for the job interviews with lucrative salary levels. This does not exactly describe Michael Wallerstein, one of the subjects of the article, who elected to attend Thomas Jefferson School of Law based on its location, casually racked up over $250K in student debt (in part, to study in Paris and Prague), and is now equally casual about paying it back. But, despite unemployment, he believes it to be a worthwhile investment of taxpayers’ money since he is now able to impress himself with the fact that he’s a lawyer.

In fact, in reading the NYT article and following that up with perusal of several of the blogs, I didn’t come across a single graduate who impressed me as a potentially valuable employee. Many couldn’t spell or string words together into a cogent sentence. One was particularly memorable: the author of Third-Tier Hell. While Nando does possess an impressive crude language vocabulary, he was outraged by an article out of the University of Virginia Law School in which the Dean revealed plans for a faculty-run law firm to hire their own graduates in an effort to improve postgrad employment claims. Nando was so lathered up cursing over the deceptions of the dastardly Dean that he ignored the April 1 dateline, and didn’t bother to perform some very basic online research that clearly established the article as an April Fool’s prank. But what really got me was when he wrote a cruel and cynical paragraph making fun of an “employed lawyer” who “actually only works at Legal Aid”: like the embittered and entitled little prick that Nando is, he went on to describe his own mental picture of said Legal Aid attorney’s incredibly substandard clothing, haircut, mode of transportation, and apartment (Nando actually used the term “pitiful loser”). If Nando had perfect scores on his LSATs and bar exam, and graduated in the top 1% of a top tier school, I wouldn’t hire him based on those two blog snippets. I fail to see what talents he could bring to any job, much less an entry-level $160K/year position.

[quote=walterwhite] ……if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number….but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. [/quote]

As mentioned above, perhaps the planning on how to pay it back should take place PRIOR to enrollment, instead of the week after graduation? This way they not only could figure out the cost/benefit ratio of law school (just in case “the majesty and beauty of the study of the law” is not, in itself, adequate), but also how much money will actually have to be coming in each month in order to cover the loan payments along with all other expenses. Somehow, the image of a law student who neglects to investigate financial details of a huge transaction before signing the papers does not instill confidence in me as a potential client or employer.

That being said, a major reason that the loan amounts increase to astronomical amounts is that students either ignore their obligations, or simply don’t bother to pay them on time. The aforementioned Mr. Wallerstein was incredibly lackadaisical about his, unaware of the total amount, and fairly certain that he could simply wish the loans away. During this time, penalties, interest, and late fees are accruing rapidly.

These people need to grow up. I don’t see why my tax dollars should have paid for Mr. Wallerstein, a substandard student in ANY subject, to travel to Europe to study the law. He racked up the bills, so he needs to pay them.

And, yes, there needs to be a huge overhaul of the student lending racket, including the roles played by the schools.

[quote=walterwhite] and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for….but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….
[/quote]

I will admit that a lot of these kids are “encouraged” by ambitious parents who relish the idea of boasting about “my son (or daughter), the lawyer”, and who do not perform actual research on the realities of the law profession.

The fact is that, no matter how good a student you are, how highly your school is ranked, and how healthy the employment market is in a particular field at a given time, there’s never a guarantee of a job.

Yes, the schools should be forced to revise their postgrad “employment” stats, no question about it. But isn’t this yet another case of “something bad happened to me, so someone has to pay!!”? It’s not just law school. Privileged, entitled adults in their 20s are really, really pissed off at Baby Boomers (their words, not mine) because they’re convinced that we’re the reason they aren’t getting $160K to $200K jobs right out of school. In fact, they don’t even know if there are any $160K to $200K jobs out there. And from the sentiments on these blogs, it would appear to be irrelevant as to whether they are qualified for them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….[/quote]

scaredy, I am putting myself in their shoes. I’m back in school now, and figuring out the amount of debt that would be wise to incur.

The people in the articles that were cited were incredibly short-sighted. Based on your posts on other threads, I can’t believe that you would recommend that someone go out and purchase a house for which they had not studied the particulars of financing. At $200,000 to $350,000 (the amounts cited in the articles), we’re talking about the monetary equivalent of a house purchase. Yet none of these “professional degree”-seeking students had thought to figure out the terms of payback: the amount of the monthly payments and the length of time they would have to be made.

Even if these law school wunderkinds did manage to procure a $160,000 per year job right out of law school, it would have been difficult to handle the payments on $200K to $300K of debt on the roughly $8,000 per month take-home pay. That kind of student debt translates into payments of $3,000 per month (38% of $13 income) to $4,000 (50%).

And forget the employment numbers the schools were selling (yes, selling! All school have huge marketing budgets, especially law schools.) I can’t remember a time since I was going to school in the 1970s when there was a really good employment market for newly-graduated lawyers. Even in the best of times, you have to be in the top 10% of your class in a top tier school to be called in for the job interviews with lucrative salary levels. This does not exactly describe Michael Wallerstein, one of the subjects of the article, who elected to attend Thomas Jefferson School of Law based on its location, casually racked up over $250K in student debt (in part, to study in Paris and Prague), and is now equally casual about paying it back. But, despite unemployment, he believes it to be a worthwhile investment of taxpayers’ money since he is now able to impress himself with the fact that he’s a lawyer.

In fact, in reading the NYT article and following that up with perusal of several of the blogs, I didn’t come across a single graduate who impressed me as a potentially valuable employee. Many couldn’t spell or string words together into a cogent sentence. One was particularly memorable: the author of Third-Tier Hell. While Nando does possess an impressive crude language vocabulary, he was outraged by an article out of the University of Virginia Law School in which the Dean revealed plans for a faculty-run law firm to hire their own graduates in an effort to improve postgrad employment claims. Nando was so lathered up cursing over the deceptions of the dastardly Dean that he ignored the April 1 dateline, and didn’t bother to perform some very basic online research that clearly established the article as an April Fool’s prank. But what really got me was when he wrote a cruel and cynical paragraph making fun of an “employed lawyer” who “actually only works at Legal Aid”: like the embittered and entitled little prick that Nando is, he went on to describe his own mental picture of said Legal Aid attorney’s incredibly substandard clothing, haircut, mode of transportation, and apartment (Nando actually used the term “pitiful loser”). If Nando had perfect scores on his LSATs and bar exam, and graduated in the top 1% of a top tier school, I wouldn’t hire him based on those two blog snippets. I fail to see what talents he could bring to any job, much less an entry-level $160K/year position.

[quote=walterwhite] ……if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number….but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. [/quote]

As mentioned above, perhaps the planning on how to pay it back should take place PRIOR to enrollment, instead of the week after graduation? This way they not only could figure out the cost/benefit ratio of law school (just in case “the majesty and beauty of the study of the law” is not, in itself, adequate), but also how much money will actually have to be coming in each month in order to cover the loan payments along with all other expenses. Somehow, the image of a law student who neglects to investigate financial details of a huge transaction before signing the papers does not instill confidence in me as a potential client or employer.

That being said, a major reason that the loan amounts increase to astronomical amounts is that students either ignore their obligations, or simply don’t bother to pay them on time. The aforementioned Mr. Wallerstein was incredibly lackadaisical about his, unaware of the total amount, and fairly certain that he could simply wish the loans away. During this time, penalties, interest, and late fees are accruing rapidly.

These people need to grow up. I don’t see why my tax dollars should have paid for Mr. Wallerstein, a substandard student in ANY subject, to travel to Europe to study the law. He racked up the bills, so he needs to pay them.

And, yes, there needs to be a huge overhaul of the student lending racket, including the roles played by the schools.

[quote=walterwhite] and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for….but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….
[/quote]

I will admit that a lot of these kids are “encouraged” by ambitious parents who relish the idea of boasting about “my son (or daughter), the lawyer”, and who do not perform actual research on the realities of the law profession.

The fact is that, no matter how good a student you are, how highly your school is ranked, and how healthy the employment market is in a particular field at a given time, there’s never a guarantee of a job.

Yes, the schools should be forced to revise their postgrad “employment” stats, no question about it. But isn’t this yet another case of “something bad happened to me, so someone has to pay!!”? It’s not just law school. Privileged, entitled adults in their 20s are really, really pissed off at Baby Boomers (their words, not mine) because they’re convinced that we’re the reason they aren’t getting $160K to $200K jobs right out of school. In fact, they don’t even know if there are any $160K to $200K jobs out there. And from the sentiments on these blogs, it would appear to be irrelevant as to whether they are qualified for them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….[/quote]

scaredy, I am putting myself in their shoes. I’m back in school now, and figuring out the amount of debt that would be wise to incur.

The people in the articles that were cited were incredibly short-sighted. Based on your posts on other threads, I can’t believe that you would recommend that someone go out and purchase a house for which they had not studied the particulars of financing. At $200,000 to $350,000 (the amounts cited in the articles), we’re talking about the monetary equivalent of a house purchase. Yet none of these “professional degree”-seeking students had thought to figure out the terms of payback: the amount of the monthly payments and the length of time they would have to be made.

Even if these law school wunderkinds did manage to procure a $160,000 per year job right out of law school, it would have been difficult to handle the payments on $200K to $300K of debt on the roughly $8,000 per month take-home pay. That kind of student debt translates into payments of $3,000 per month (38% of $13 income) to $4,000 (50%).

And forget the employment numbers the schools were selling (yes, selling! All school have huge marketing budgets, especially law schools.) I can’t remember a time since I was going to school in the 1970s when there was a really good employment market for newly-graduated lawyers. Even in the best of times, you have to be in the top 10% of your class in a top tier school to be called in for the job interviews with lucrative salary levels. This does not exactly describe Michael Wallerstein, one of the subjects of the article, who elected to attend Thomas Jefferson School of Law based on its location, casually racked up over $250K in student debt (in part, to study in Paris and Prague), and is now equally casual about paying it back. But, despite unemployment, he believes it to be a worthwhile investment of taxpayers’ money since he is now able to impress himself with the fact that he’s a lawyer.

In fact, in reading the NYT article and following that up with perusal of several of the blogs, I didn’t come across a single graduate who impressed me as a potentially valuable employee. Many couldn’t spell or string words together into a cogent sentence. One was particularly memorable: the author of Third-Tier Hell. While Nando does possess an impressive crude language vocabulary, he was outraged by an article out of the University of Virginia Law School in which the Dean revealed plans for a faculty-run law firm to hire their own graduates in an effort to improve postgrad employment claims. Nando was so lathered up cursing over the deceptions of the dastardly Dean that he ignored the April 1 dateline, and didn’t bother to perform some very basic online research that clearly established the article as an April Fool’s prank. But what really got me was when he wrote a cruel and cynical paragraph making fun of an “employed lawyer” who “actually only works at Legal Aid”: like the embittered and entitled little prick that Nando is, he went on to describe his own mental picture of said Legal Aid attorney’s incredibly substandard clothing, haircut, mode of transportation, and apartment (Nando actually used the term “pitiful loser”). If Nando had perfect scores on his LSATs and bar exam, and graduated in the top 1% of a top tier school, I wouldn’t hire him based on those two blog snippets. I fail to see what talents he could bring to any job, much less an entry-level $160K/year position.

[quote=walterwhite] ……if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number….but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. [/quote]

As mentioned above, perhaps the planning on how to pay it back should take place PRIOR to enrollment, instead of the week after graduation? This way they not only could figure out the cost/benefit ratio of law school (just in case “the majesty and beauty of the study of the law” is not, in itself, adequate), but also how much money will actually have to be coming in each month in order to cover the loan payments along with all other expenses. Somehow, the image of a law student who neglects to investigate financial details of a huge transaction before signing the papers does not instill confidence in me as a potential client or employer.

That being said, a major reason that the loan amounts increase to astronomical amounts is that students either ignore their obligations, or simply don’t bother to pay them on time. The aforementioned Mr. Wallerstein was incredibly lackadaisical about his, unaware of the total amount, and fairly certain that he could simply wish the loans away. During this time, penalties, interest, and late fees are accruing rapidly.

These people need to grow up. I don’t see why my tax dollars should have paid for Mr. Wallerstein, a substandard student in ANY subject, to travel to Europe to study the law. He racked up the bills, so he needs to pay them.

And, yes, there needs to be a huge overhaul of the student lending racket, including the roles played by the schools.

[quote=walterwhite] and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for….but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….
[/quote]

I will admit that a lot of these kids are “encouraged” by ambitious parents who relish the idea of boasting about “my son (or daughter), the lawyer”, and who do not perform actual research on the realities of the law profession.

The fact is that, no matter how good a student you are, how highly your school is ranked, and how healthy the employment market is in a particular field at a given time, there’s never a guarantee of a job.

Yes, the schools should be forced to revise their postgrad “employment” stats, no question about it. But isn’t this yet another case of “something bad happened to me, so someone has to pay!!”? It’s not just law school. Privileged, entitled adults in their 20s are really, really pissed off at Baby Boomers (their words, not mine) because they’re convinced that we’re the reason they aren’t getting $160K to $200K jobs right out of school. In fact, they don’t even know if there are any $160K to $200K jobs out there. And from the sentiments on these blogs, it would appear to be irrelevant as to whether they are qualified for them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….[/quote]

scaredy, I am putting myself in their shoes. I’m back in school now, and figuring out the amount of debt that would be wise to incur.

The people in the articles that were cited were incredibly short-sighted. Based on your posts on other threads, I can’t believe that you would recommend that someone go out and purchase a house for which they had not studied the particulars of financing. At $200,000 to $350,000 (the amounts cited in the articles), we’re talking about the monetary equivalent of a house purchase. Yet none of these “professional degree”-seeking students had thought to figure out the terms of payback: the amount of the monthly payments and the length of time they would have to be made.

Even if these law school wunderkinds did manage to procure a $160,000 per year job right out of law school, it would have been difficult to handle the payments on $200K to $300K of debt on the roughly $8,000 per month take-home pay. That kind of student debt translates into payments of $3,000 per month (38% of $13 income) to $4,000 (50%).

And forget the employment numbers the schools were selling (yes, selling! All school have huge marketing budgets, especially law schools.) I can’t remember a time since I was going to school in the 1970s when there was a really good employment market for newly-graduated lawyers. Even in the best of times, you have to be in the top 10% of your class in a top tier school to be called in for the job interviews with lucrative salary levels. This does not exactly describe Michael Wallerstein, one of the subjects of the article, who elected to attend Thomas Jefferson School of Law based on its location, casually racked up over $250K in student debt (in part, to study in Paris and Prague), and is now equally casual about paying it back. But, despite unemployment, he believes it to be a worthwhile investment of taxpayers’ money since he is now able to impress himself with the fact that he’s a lawyer.

In fact, in reading the NYT article and following that up with perusal of several of the blogs, I didn’t come across a single graduate who impressed me as a potentially valuable employee. Many couldn’t spell or string words together into a cogent sentence. One was particularly memorable: the author of Third-Tier Hell. While Nando does possess an impressive crude language vocabulary, he was outraged by an article out of the University of Virginia Law School in which the Dean revealed plans for a faculty-run law firm to hire their own graduates in an effort to improve postgrad employment claims. Nando was so lathered up cursing over the deceptions of the dastardly Dean that he ignored the April 1 dateline, and didn’t bother to perform some very basic online research that clearly established the article as an April Fool’s prank. But what really got me was when he wrote a cruel and cynical paragraph making fun of an “employed lawyer” who “actually only works at Legal Aid”: like the embittered and entitled little prick that Nando is, he went on to describe his own mental picture of said Legal Aid attorney’s incredibly substandard clothing, haircut, mode of transportation, and apartment (Nando actually used the term “pitiful loser”). If Nando had perfect scores on his LSATs and bar exam, and graduated in the top 1% of a top tier school, I wouldn’t hire him based on those two blog snippets. I fail to see what talents he could bring to any job, much less an entry-level $160K/year position.

[quote=walterwhite] ……if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number….but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. [/quote]

As mentioned above, perhaps the planning on how to pay it back should take place PRIOR to enrollment, instead of the week after graduation? This way they not only could figure out the cost/benefit ratio of law school (just in case “the majesty and beauty of the study of the law” is not, in itself, adequate), but also how much money will actually have to be coming in each month in order to cover the loan payments along with all other expenses. Somehow, the image of a law student who neglects to investigate financial details of a huge transaction before signing the papers does not instill confidence in me as a potential client or employer.

That being said, a major reason that the loan amounts increase to astronomical amounts is that students either ignore their obligations, or simply don’t bother to pay them on time. The aforementioned Mr. Wallerstein was incredibly lackadaisical about his, unaware of the total amount, and fairly certain that he could simply wish the loans away. During this time, penalties, interest, and late fees are accruing rapidly.

These people need to grow up. I don’t see why my tax dollars should have paid for Mr. Wallerstein, a substandard student in ANY subject, to travel to Europe to study the law. He racked up the bills, so he needs to pay them.

And, yes, there needs to be a huge overhaul of the student lending racket, including the roles played by the schools.

[quote=walterwhite] and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for….but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….
[/quote]

I will admit that a lot of these kids are “encouraged” by ambitious parents who relish the idea of boasting about “my son (or daughter), the lawyer”, and who do not perform actual research on the realities of the law profession.

The fact is that, no matter how good a student you are, how highly your school is ranked, and how healthy the employment market is in a particular field at a given time, there’s never a guarantee of a job.

Yes, the schools should be forced to revise their postgrad “employment” stats, no question about it. But isn’t this yet another case of “something bad happened to me, so someone has to pay!!”? It’s not just law school. Privileged, entitled adults in their 20s are really, really pissed off at Baby Boomers (their words, not mine) because they’re convinced that we’re the reason they aren’t getting $160K to $200K jobs right out of school. In fact, they don’t even know if there are any $160K to $200K jobs out there. And from the sentiments on these blogs, it would appear to be irrelevant as to whether they are qualified for them.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….[/quote]

scaredy, I am putting myself in their shoes. I’m back in school now, and figuring out the amount of debt that would be wise to incur.

The people in the articles that were cited were incredibly short-sighted. Based on your posts on other threads, I can’t believe that you would recommend that someone go out and purchase a house for which they had not studied the particulars of financing. At $200,000 to $350,000 (the amounts cited in the articles), we’re talking about the monetary equivalent of a house purchase. Yet none of these “professional degree”-seeking students had thought to figure out the terms of payback: the amount of the monthly payments and the length of time they would have to be made.

Even if these law school wunderkinds did manage to procure a $160,000 per year job right out of law school, it would have been difficult to handle the payments on $200K to $300K of debt on the roughly $8,000 per month take-home pay. That kind of student debt translates into payments of $3,000 per month (38% of $13 income) to $4,000 (50%).

And forget the employment numbers the schools were selling (yes, selling! All school have huge marketing budgets, especially law schools.) I can’t remember a time since I was going to school in the 1970s when there was a really good employment market for newly-graduated lawyers. Even in the best of times, you have to be in the top 10% of your class in a top tier school to be called in for the job interviews with lucrative salary levels. This does not exactly describe Michael Wallerstein, one of the subjects of the article, who elected to attend Thomas Jefferson School of Law based on its location, casually racked up over $250K in student debt (in part, to study in Paris and Prague), and is now equally casual about paying it back. But, despite unemployment, he believes it to be a worthwhile investment of taxpayers’ money since he is now able to impress himself with the fact that he’s a lawyer.

In fact, in reading the NYT article and following that up with perusal of several of the blogs, I didn’t come across a single graduate who impressed me as a potentially valuable employee. Many couldn’t spell or string words together into a cogent sentence. One was particularly memorable: the author of Third-Tier Hell. While Nando does possess an impressive crude language vocabulary, he was outraged by an article out of the University of Virginia Law School in which the Dean revealed plans for a faculty-run law firm to hire their own graduates in an effort to improve postgrad employment claims. Nando was so lathered up cursing over the deceptions of the dastardly Dean that he ignored the April 1 dateline, and didn’t bother to perform some very basic online research that clearly established the article as an April Fool’s prank. But what really got me was when he wrote a cruel and cynical paragraph making fun of an “employed lawyer” who “actually only works at Legal Aid”: like the embittered and entitled little prick that Nando is, he went on to describe his own mental picture of said Legal Aid attorney’s incredibly substandard clothing, haircut, mode of transportation, and apartment (Nando actually used the term “pitiful loser”). If Nando had perfect scores on his LSATs and bar exam, and graduated in the top 1% of a top tier school, I wouldn’t hire him based on those two blog snippets. I fail to see what talents he could bring to any job, much less an entry-level $160K/year position.

[quote=walterwhite] ……if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number….but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. [/quote]

As mentioned above, perhaps the planning on how to pay it back should take place PRIOR to enrollment, instead of the week after graduation? This way they not only could figure out the cost/benefit ratio of law school (just in case “the majesty and beauty of the study of the law” is not, in itself, adequate), but also how much money will actually have to be coming in each month in order to cover the loan payments along with all other expenses. Somehow, the image of a law student who neglects to investigate financial details of a huge transaction before signing the papers does not instill confidence in me as a potential client or employer.

That being said, a major reason that the loan amounts increase to astronomical amounts is that students either ignore their obligations, or simply don’t bother to pay them on time. The aforementioned Mr. Wallerstein was incredibly lackadaisical about his, unaware of the total amount, and fairly certain that he could simply wish the loans away. During this time, penalties, interest, and late fees are accruing rapidly.

These people need to grow up. I don’t see why my tax dollars should have paid for Mr. Wallerstein, a substandard student in ANY subject, to travel to Europe to study the law. He racked up the bills, so he needs to pay them.

And, yes, there needs to be a huge overhaul of the student lending racket, including the roles played by the schools.

[quote=walterwhite] and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for….but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….
[/quote]

I will admit that a lot of these kids are “encouraged” by ambitious parents who relish the idea of boasting about “my son (or daughter), the lawyer”, and who do not perform actual research on the realities of the law profession.

The fact is that, no matter how good a student you are, how highly your school is ranked, and how healthy the employment market is in a particular field at a given time, there’s never a guarantee of a job.

Yes, the schools should be forced to revise their postgrad “employment” stats, no question about it. But isn’t this yet another case of “something bad happened to me, so someone has to pay!!”? It’s not just law school. Privileged, entitled adults in their 20s are really, really pissed off at Baby Boomers (their words, not mine) because they’re convinced that we’re the reason they aren’t getting $160K to $200K jobs right out of school. In fact, they don’t even know if there are any $160K to $200K jobs out there. And from the sentiments on these blogs, it would appear to be irrelevant as to whether they are qualified for them.

[an]

Thanks for the background of the story. So in essence, she didn’t get kick out of the house. I didn’t know about this story and the OP said she was kicked out.

You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats. I also know plenty of people who got their college education covered by their parents. They’re not deadbeats either and they’re still quite close to their parents. Some even move back in with their parents till they got married to save for a house. So, I don’t see anything wrong with parents choosing to support their kids when they need help. Just like kids choosing to support their parents when they need help in their old age.

[an]

Thanks for the background of the story. So in essence, she didn’t get kick out of the house. I didn’t know about this story and the OP said she was kicked out.

You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats. I also know plenty of people who got their college education covered by their parents. They’re not deadbeats either and they’re still quite close to their parents. Some even move back in with their parents till they got married to save for a house. So, I don’t see anything wrong with parents choosing to support their kids when they need help. Just like kids choosing to support their parents when they need help in their old age.

[an]

Thanks for the background of the story. So in essence, she didn’t get kick out of the house. I didn’t know about this story and the OP said she was kicked out.

You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats. I also know plenty of people who got their college education covered by their parents. They’re not deadbeats either and they’re still quite close to their parents. Some even move back in with their parents till they got married to save for a house. So, I don’t see anything wrong with parents choosing to support their kids when they need help. Just like kids choosing to support their parents when they need help in their old age.

[an]

Thanks for the background of the story. So in essence, she didn’t get kick out of the house. I didn’t know about this story and the OP said she was kicked out.

You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats. I also know plenty of people who got their college education covered by their parents. They’re not deadbeats either and they’re still quite close to their parents. Some even move back in with their parents till they got married to save for a house. So, I don’t see anything wrong with parents choosing to support their kids when they need help. Just like kids choosing to support their parents when they need help in their old age.

[an]

Thanks for the background of the story. So in essence, she didn’t get kick out of the house. I didn’t know about this story and the OP said she was kicked out.

You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats. I also know plenty of people who got their college education covered by their parents. They’re not deadbeats either and they’re still quite close to their parents. Some even move back in with their parents till they got married to save for a house. So, I don’t see anything wrong with parents choosing to support their kids when they need help. Just like kids choosing to support their parents when they need help in their old age.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.

[UCGal]

[quote=AN]
You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.

[Author]

Posts