4 ms·

For-profit law schools aren't the problem, law schools are. For-profit students at schools like the one in the article may be "subprime" as far as earning pote

For-profit law schools aren't the problem, law schools are. For-profit students at schools like the one in the article may be "subprime" as far as earning potential or the ability to pass the bar goes, but for graduates of schools outside of the top ten or fifteen schools your debt is likely to be nearly as high as from the school in the article without much better job prospects. Florida Coastal's tuition and costs are a lot, but they're not out of line with private law schools and a number of public ones (UPenn-$55k per year/UVA-$48k per year for in-state) until you get past the top 25 schools (and if you're not going to a top school, you really need to do some deep thinking about why you are still going to law school at all). All of the disadvantages of student loans apply to not-for-profit law students, as well. That's a lot of money to pay for a job market that is not great, and the warnings about poor earning potential and high debt load that they cite for students there are just as applicable to non-profit students, too. Law school--for profit or not-for-profit--isn't a bad idea for everyone, but it's hardly a good idea for most, either. Based on the title I fully expected this article to be about the larger law school market and graduates' debt and job prospects. "The Law School Scam" is a lot broader than for-profit schools.

jessaustin 12y ago
Indeed, the "School Scam" is a lot broader than law schools.
hudibras 12y ago
The author of the article, Paul Campos, has a blog where he regularly talks about the law school scam in much more general terms than just the for-profit schools. He probably circumscribed the article for space considerations at The Atlantic's request. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/author/paul-campos http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/author/paul-campos
leoc 12y ago
I think the article addressed this very squarely: > It is important to note that while InfiLaw’s abuse of the student-loan system may be egregious, it is far from unique. Ultimately, this story is about not only for-profit law schools, or law schools, or even for-profit higher education. It is about the problematic financial structure of higher education in America today. It would be comforting to think that the crisis is confined to for-profit schools—and indeed this idea is floated regularly by defenders of higher education’s status quo. But it would be more accurate to say that for-profit schools, with their unabashed pursuit of money at the expense of their students’ long-term futures, merely throw this crisis into particularly sharp relief. To see why, consider the regulatory and political mechanisms that have allowed InfiLaw to make such handsome profits while producing disastrous results for so many of its “customers.” [...] > What, after all, is the difference between the InfiLaw schools and Michigan’s Thomas M. Cooley, or Boston’s New England Law, or Chicago’s John Marshall, or San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson? All of these law schools feature student bodies with poor academic qualifications and terrible job prospects relative to their average debt. In recent years, as law-school applications have collapsed, all of these schools have, just like the InfiLaw schools, cut their already low admissions standards. And, like Florida Coastal, Arizona Summit, and Charlotte, all of these schools now have a very high percentage of students who, given their LSAT scores, are unlikely to ever pass the bar. Ultimately, what difference does it make that none of these schools produce profit in the technical (and taxable) sense, because they are organized as nonprofits? > The only real difference between for-profit and nonprofit schools is that while for-profits are run for the benefit of their owners, nonprofits are run for the benefit of the most-powerful stakeholders within those institutions.

jessaustin 12y ago

Indeed, the "School Scam" is a lot broader than law schools.

hudibras 12y ago

The author of the article, Paul Campos, has a blog where he regularly talks about the law school scam in much more general terms than just the for-profit schools. He probably circumscribed the article for space considerations at The Atlantic's request. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/author/paul-campos http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/author/paul-campos

leoc 12y ago

I think the article addressed this very squarely: > It is important to note that while InfiLaw’s abuse of the student-loan system may be egregious, it is far from unique. Ultimately, this story is about not only for-profit law schools, or law schools, or even for-profit higher education. It is about the problematic financial structure of higher education in America today. It would be comforting to think that the crisis is confined to for-profit schools—and indeed this idea is floated regularly by defenders of higher education’s status quo. But it would be more accurate to say that for-profit schools, with their unabashed pursuit of money at the expense of their students’ long-term futures, merely throw this crisis into particularly sharp relief. To see why, consider the regulatory and political mechanisms that have allowed InfiLaw to make such handsome profits while producing disastrous results for so many of its “customers.” [...] > What, after all, is the difference between the InfiLaw schools and Michigan’s Thomas M. Cooley, or Boston’s New England Law, or Chicago’s John Marshall, or San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson? All of these law schools feature student bodies with poor academic qualifications and terrible job prospects relative to their average debt. In recent years, as law-school applications have collapsed, all of these schools have, just like the InfiLaw schools, cut their already low admissions standards. And, like Florida Coastal, Arizona Summit, and Charlotte, all of these schools now have a very high percentage of students who, given their LSAT scores, are unlikely to ever pass the bar. Ultimately, what difference does it make that none of these schools produce profit in the technical (and taxable) sense, because they are organized as nonprofits? > The only real difference between for-profit and nonprofit schools is that while for-profits are run for the benefit of their owners, nonprofits are run for the benefit of the most-powerful stakeholders within those institutions.