Attention, at least in the media, has shifted from the shocking amount of student debt to "placing the blame" for how that happened. In THE NEW YORK TIMES, Ron Leiber raises that question in regard to undergraduate education.
Leiber focuses on Cortney Munn, who received a BA from NYU in 2005, with almost $100,000 in loan debt. Because she is attending night school, in addition to her day job which pays about $20 an hour, payment has been deferred. Median debt for bachelor-degree graduates is about $22,380, with 10% at $40,000 or more.
Leiber explores who should have stepped up to the plate and confronted Munn that she might have been borrowing too much. Her mother, educational institutions, and lenders all come under the microscope. He is inclined to let Sallie Mae off the hook because "a responsible grownup co-signed for its loan to the Munnas, and the company [Sallie Mae] eventually cut them off."
Of course, those same "placing blame" issues can be applied to those in the loop who play a role in law-school graduates who had taken on about $100,000 in debt. This question has become urgent since the law bubble burst about two years ago. Debt-laden JDs who cannot get jobs which pay enough to see that debt through are facing scary financial scenarios. After all, long term, the practice of law is a shrinking field.
Where can the finger be appointed? Here are just some of the supposed miscreants:
- The American Bar Association which keeps accrediting more law schools, which increases the current glut.
- Law-school administers who keep admitting students, despite the downsized demand for more lawyers.
- Law-school administers who aren't being transparent in disclosure of employment figures after graduation and for the next four or five years.
- Those who enroll in law school, despite the reality of the numbers.
- Parents who cosign loans.
Comments