That's just not true. And the only people who could be fooled into believing it are the ones at law school(s) number 4 in the meaningless ranking system. Here are some of the most privileged people in the world, whose opportunities for prosperity and significance are unimaginable to more than 99.98% of the human race, worrying about whether they can succeed in life. Were it not so ludicrous, it would be obscene.

The creed of legal education (Thurgood, The Folklore of Capitalism) “you are safe, you are someone” continues to be promulgated by top 14 law schools.

Did you proofread this? What has "Thurgood" to do with "The Folklore of Capitalism"? These memes you are describing above and below aren't creeds, in Arnold's sense, at all. They have nothing to do with defining the boundaries of organization. They're dogma, but of a different kind.

Simultaneously outside of the alabaster walls of academia, the hew populist creed forged in the vicissitudes of homelessness, poverty and high unemployment has invaded even the hallowed halls of the American Bar Association, the new creed being "the system is broken".

Why? The proportion of the price bought with future earnings in itself doesn't tell us anything. Inherently, any ability to pay a present price with future earnings is desirable, when the present purchase increases future earning power. There can be no doubt that having a law license increases future earning power. So the question is solely whether the price of the service and the money are both reasonable. Much as there is to deplore about the present state of Columbia Law School, there's no doubt in my mind that, properly used, the resources available here are well worth their price of purchase for every single student. Because, however, student loans are presently priced absurdly, students who don't need them shouldn't take them, which means that law school, like other forms of social mobility in America, is being sharply biased towards the rich.

Which is altogether true about working class people, while being a shameful dodge from law students who are being given, in return for the price they pay, a license and a network more than sufficient to earn a fortune in almost any walk of life they choose. The debt is an economic problem only because the mortgage involved is too expensive, not because (even at this ridiculous rate) it will be an unbearable burden for young lawyers to discharge through earnings from their practices. What you have to fear, therefore, is fear itself. The debt is a nuisance: you need to refinance your practice as early as you can, because of these absurd and politically-determined rates. And so?

Wont isn't wonton. Did you proofread, or were dumplings on your mind?

So there's politics to do, and you should be trying to get it done. But in the meantime, the nut's a little larger because of the artificially high rate. You prepay where you can, you wait for an opportunity to refinance your student debt by one means or another, you postpone consumption occasionally, and you get on with your practice. The idea that the debt is a life-altering disability is not debt-slavery, it's delusion-slavery.

Taking Responsibility

The Self Taught, $240,000, CLS graduate

One option after owning up to poor decision making and fear is dropping out and fighting the debt burden through personal litigation, a restructured payment plan that you never actually pay off or lobbying to legislators. "Door One" is always an option. The other option for changing the path of the overly academic, expensive legal education at a private law school is not well travelled but a feasible one for those who have the courage. Participating in semester externships and volunteering at legal organizations for a cause you believe in can help with gaining practical legal education. The other option is finding a mentor who is a practitioner of the law, who is willing to expose you to a working practice and will allow you to take on real world tasks and interacting with clients. Lastly it's about having the confidence to be self employed even now, attempting to do legal work for pay whenever possible and creating opportunities for yourself.

As the issue of empowerment relates to the collective group of indebted law students, as a whole a committee for legal education reform could accomplish much through networking. Bringing media coverage to the issue through protests, articles, petitioning to legislative representatives, imploring high powered alumni, filing a collective action lawsuit or even a lawsuit meant to bring the issue attention, can all help in reforming legal education and the profession. However, the most important element is leveraging the network of family, friends and alumni to aid their sons, daughters, friends, cousins and mentees, in becoming whole, empowered lawyers who serve the interests of people rather than corporations.

The first half of the draft sounds like panic, and the second half sounds like a speech. My response to the first part, as you see, is to wrestle with its premises at every turn. My response to the second is, let's get real.

First, then, I think it's important to stop hyperventilating. It's true that there's a mortgage. That's no big deal. People who buy houses have mortgages. Interest is subsidized by the income tax deduction. It's true that your rate is too high. You need to deal with that by every means possible. Your prosperity for the next few years will be reduced by the tax you are paying through the political manipulation of your interest rate. But your practice has a nut which is slightly larger than it should be, so you will be careful to pay less office rent, to cut your research bill near zero, and you may decide to have one less support worker than you need. In other words, your debt is a business issue for your practice, not a life-limiting disease.

Second, speech-making about the debt is a waste of time, as speech-making about any business issue in your practice is a waste of time. It would be nice if the ABA and other professional associations were lobbying on your behalf, but you're not their members and they don't give a damn. The right venue of lobbying is in the Columbia University-Chuck Schumer channel. That doesn't work naturally because Senator Schumer's real constituency, the finance industry, doesn't have your interests as a debtor very close to heart. And Columbia, as you notice, doesn't give a damn about your high interest rate because of price inelasticity in the educational services product it is selling you.

What will help you is ceasing to waste your time panicking about a debt that shouldn't be panic-inducing, and also about the politics of the interest rate, which are disgusting but not presently fixable. Instead you need to be getting yourself ready to practice. What skills and expertise are you going to need in the portion of your practice devoted to making money? Where are your paying clients or donors going to come from, and how can Columbia Law School's network connect you to them? What non-profit activities do you want your practice to engage in? Who besides yourself is going to support these activities? If you want to solve the problem you see before you, stop looking at the problem overall and start building your personal solution. The next draft should address questions at that level.

Paper Title

-- By ElizabethEncinas - 26 Feb 2013

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II

Subsection A

Subsection B

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ElizabethEncinas
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.