Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
In a review of Anya Kamenetz's Generation Debt: Why Now Is a Terrible Time to Be Young, Kerry Howley confronts the horror of being young, prosperous, and lucky.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
SR | February 27, 2006, 9:56am | #
According to the College Board, the average college graduate will make $1 million more over her lifetime than the average high school graduate. The profit after factoring in loan debt? $982,400.I'm sorry, but seeing this number repeated again in something on Reason.com is highly irritating when it has been pointed out previously that this is an absurdly over-simplified calculation of "profit". As stated before, it (A) completely ignores interest on the debt; and (B) fails to consider opportunity costs, most especially in the form of foregone investments that could have been made with the additional funds.
emme | February 27, 2006, 10:08am | #
"As stated before, it (A) completely ignores interest on the debt; and (B) fails to consider opportunity costs, most especially in the form of foregone investments that could have been made with the additional funds"You're right about point A. But i think you're wrong about point B. When it comes to determining profit why would you subtract opportunity cost? Your profit is the same regardless of your opportunity cost isn't it? Isnt't profit revenue minus expenses? I have not taken an accounting class since college but I'm pretty sure opportunity cost was not deducted from revenue.
Mo | February 27, 2006, 10:20am | #
emme,There's a reason why mutual fund performance isn't measured solely on the basis of absolute performance, but also performance relative to an index fund. If you could have made more earning money and putting the extra money in an index fund, then you're hardly better off going to college.
I agree with emme. Point A is correct, in which case maybe it's $950,000 of profit. Big difference. Regarding SR's point B, it's all about comparison. What "opportunity" is the college graduate missing out on that the high school graduate has? I suppose the latter could invest the money that the college bound individual has invested in college somewhere else. But if the data shows that the college degree nets the extra million compared to what the high school graduate gets, then it's pretty much settled that the college graduate has made the better investment. Case closed.
mk | February 27, 2006, 10:32am | #
Everyone say "prolix props" five times fast.I really have to find an opportunity to use that in a conversation today. I'm enriching my word power through Hit & Run!
It's just an example, not a doctoral dissertation. Sheesh. Would anyone argue that college grads don't earn more on average over their working lives than high school grads? Or is it the exact amount cited that has you picking nits?
Problem C is selection bias. If smarter people go to college and smarter people make more money then the effect of college is hard to disentagle from the effect of being smart. Adjusting for this might cut a large chunk out of that mil.
Mo | February 27, 2006, 10:52am | #
fyodor,Not to mention the value of the money a college grad spends in year 1 is worth far far more than the increased salary 40 years later. Is the million adjusted for a time value of money?
mewsifer | February 27, 2006, 10:54am | #
While you guys nickel-and-dime her piece over small details, I for one thank Kerry for writing it.She's right after all.
thoreau | February 27, 2006, 10:55am | #
So, as far as the time value of money goes, if that $1 million is averaged over a 40 year working life then that amounts to an average of $25k extra per year. Assuming a 5% discount rate (arbitrary, but not entirely unreasonable), then that amounts to a $500k present value. But the salary differential is probably more prominent later in the graduate's career. If more of the money is received later on, then the present value drops. Let's say it drops to $300k. I have no idea if that's accurate, but it's in the ballpark.The present value of the loan debt is still only $20k at the time of graduation. In present value terms, the college grad is still pretty well off.
As far as opportunity costs go, what else could an 18 year old do with 4 years that will yield a 6 digit present value? Sure, some people start businesses right out of high school and make good money. And no doubt more people of that age would do so if colleges didn't divert so much talent away from the workforce for 4 years. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the vast majority of people would NOT create thriving businesses between the ages of 18 and 22. Most new businesses fail.
What about trade schools? Many trade school grads do quite well for themselves, and trade schools are also less expensive. Still, the fact remains that trade school students are investing some time in education after high school. So either way, higher education is an investment.
The military is an option. For some it may serve as a trade school, for others it will serve as a ticket to college. So even the military can be seen as an investment with an educational perspective.
Bottom line: Except for a handful of talented entrepreneurs, it seems that education (in some form) is a worthwhile investment for 18 year olds.
The Real Bill | February 27, 2006, 10:58am | #
Anecdote:The richest person from my high-school years never went to college. He started his own business and worked hard. He was rich before I left college.
Evan | February 27, 2006, 10:59am | #
SR,"As stated before, it (A) completely ignores interest on the debt"
So let's take the average debt from the story: $20542.50. Then apply 3.5% APR to ten years, while paying about $200/month down. It's not that much (I'm not gonna waste my time doing the calcs) You show me another place where you can borrow capital at 3.50%, and can expect that investment to earn you an average of $1,000,000.00 in your lifetime. Fuck the extra few thousand in interest---it's not like student loans are like 20% credit cards. My rate is locked @ 3.50%.
"and (B) fails to consider opportunity costs, most especially in the form of foregone investments that could have been made with the additional funds."
Again, we're talking about a nearly guaranteed $1m over the lifetime of the borrower. The reason that student loans have such a low interest rate is because the risk is so low for the lender (that, and they're subsidized). What lender is going to fork over $20k to an 18-year-old kid with no credit, for various "investments"? It's the fact that 4-year degree is worth so much (on average) that leads lenders to lend to these otherwise high-risk borrowers.
emme | February 27, 2006, 11:02am | #
Forget the crappy book for just a second.Am I the only one here who thinks Anya Kamenetz is quite the little hottie?
thoreau | February 27, 2006, 11:02am | #
Real Bill-No doubt the guy from your class made the right decision. The question is, how many other people could have or would have done the same if they hadn't gone to college? Most new businesses fail. He took a huge risk and had the talent and determination to see it through and that's great, but that doesn't mean that everybody else should try to be like him. College is still a darn good investment.
Evan | February 27, 2006, 11:02am | #
Pliny,"If smarter people go to college"
Dunno how long it's been since you were in a college, but, um, spend a few days in a dorm room, and you might be fighting to retract that statement.
Tim Cavanaugh | February 27, 2006, 11:04am | #
As stated before, it (A) completely ignores interest on the debt; and (B) fails to consider opportunity costsI can speak to both these points from personal experience. Having a lunatic fear of debt, I minimized spending in my first two years out of school in order to pay off my student loans as quickly as possible. Within a year and a half of working, my loans were all gone, and as it turned out I would have been better off continuing to pay the regular installments with interest. You have neglected to mention that the interest on student loans is well below market rates: I haven't seen a more attractive loan in my post-college career, and I wish I'd had the wisdom then to put my money into smarter investments than immediately retiring that debt. That's an opportunity cost for you.
So you can talk all day about how the extra earnings are canceled out by the interest, but it's just not true. The interest on student loans is negligible.
Interestingly, when I got out of college in 1992, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody who was direly pronouncing that my generation, the doomed x-ers, were the "first generation in American history to do worse than our parents." Plus ca change...
VM | February 27, 2006, 11:07am | #
Evan - good call!don't forget p's second incorrect statement about the "smart = making more money": that's not true.
The Real Bill | February 27, 2006, 11:09am | #
thoreau,I agree, but opportunity cost is a bitch. I chose to quit a lucrative waiter career (really good tips and reasonable hours) to be a full-time student. Had I stayed a waiter and went to school part-time, I would have been able to afford a condo here in San Francisco in the mid-90s. Since that time, the price of such condos has increased by about $400,000. That's $400,000 that I lost. I probably would have graduated only 1-2 years later, so I definitely lost. I am aware that most college students don't make as much as I did without a college degree.
Mo | February 27, 2006, 11:09am | #
Tim,Right, I was telling my girlfriend about the difference between "bad debt" (credit cards, etc) and "good debt" (student loans). I mean how often are you going to get interest rates lower than market interest, that dies when you die and is unsecured. Sweet deal. I actually think that going to college is better overall and a sweet deal (heck, my debt from one year of b-school is more than the average for 4 years of undergrad), but I determined the extra earning power as well as connections are worth it. I just don't think it's ONE MILLION DOLLARS worth it. thoreau's number, which look good enough to me, demonstrate that it's still on the order of six figures.
thoreau | February 27, 2006, 11:13am | #
Real Bill-I can sympathize. I finished college in 1998 and went straight to graduate school. If I could go back in time I would tell my younger self to work at a dotcom for a couple years, invest in some stocks, sell them before the market falls, and then go to graduate school.
Evan | February 27, 2006, 11:14am | #
Tim,"You have neglected to mention that the interest on student loans is well below market rates: I haven't seen a more attractive loan in my post-college career, and I wish I'd had the wisdom then to put my money into smarter investments than immediately retiring that debt. That's an opportunity cost for you."
Which is the point that I made a few posts up. I consolidated my federal loans last year, and am locked in at 3.5% (plus, I feel better, morally, giving my interest money to a private company rather than the federal government). My monthly minimum payments on that loan are absurdly low---less than $200, and I still owe over 15k. At the same time, I have a primary and secondary mortgage, which are locked in at 6 and 8 percent, respectively. At this point in my life, it makes more sense for me to put discretionary income (including xmas bonuses, etc) into my secondary mortgage. 3.5% is nothing!
I do wonder, though: money doesn't just fall from trees. Are student loan interest rates distorted downward by taxpayer subsidizing? I just don't know enough about the ins and outs. Even though I DID consolidate with a private lender, the only reason I was able to get a low rate with them is because the DoE set their rates so low.
So, isn't everyone else paying for us to have these low interest rates, Tim? Just curious.
fyodor | February 27, 2006, 11:16am | #
when I got out of college in 1992, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody who was direly pronouncing that my generation, the doomed x-ers, were the "first generation in American history to do worse than our parents."That pronouncement was accurate, but only because x-ers didn't grow up listening to Jimi Hendrix!!!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Evan | February 27, 2006, 11:19am | #
"I chose to quit a lucrative waiter career (really good tips and reasonable hours) to be a full-time student. Had I stayed a waiter and went to school part-time, I would have been able to afford a condo here in San Francisco in the mid-90s. Since that time, the price of such condos has increased by about $400,000. That's $400,000 that I lost. I probably would have graduated only 1-2 years later, so I definitely lost. I am aware that most college students don't make as much as I did without a college degree."Real Bill,
That's just the chance you take. You could either get a degree, which, in the long run, will be less risky and will produce more secure returns---or, you could've forgone the degree, and went into the real estate market. But, let's say you did that, and it crashed. Your condo was worth less than you paid for it. Then you'd be sitting here today wishing you'd gotten your college degree.
The point here is not that there are better investments out there than 4-year degrees. Anyone will agree to that. The point, instead, is that it is a better bet, a more secure bet, in the long run, in most cases.
The Real Bill | February 27, 2006, 11:22am | #
thoreau,I have similar feelings. I would advise any college-age person with an opportunity to earn good money to do it and put off school for a little while. Save some money. I would have loved being a student with money. Being poor was really a drag.
The Real Bill | February 27, 2006, 11:25am | #
Evan,You make a good point. Anyway, it's worked out okay. Had I not done things the way I did, I would not have met my wife and I would not necessarily have chosen a career path that led me to working from home, which I like. I could be richer but less happy.
thoreau | February 27, 2006, 11:48am | #
Actually, as I think of it, I wouldn't bother telling my younger self to work at a dotcom. If I could travel back in time I'd give my younger self a year's worth of back issues of the Wall Street Journal.And then we'd have a long talk about my graduate school research projects...
SR | February 27, 2006, 11:51am | #
"So you can talk all day about how the extra earnings are canceled out by the interest, but it's just not true."I don't doubt that taking college loans out can be a good investment. (It certainly was a great investment in my own case!) My irritation is that twice now people have used an exceedingly sloppy computation. The net value of attending college is not the added income minus the principal of the low-end-of-average loan. Reason writers routinely slam other media outlets for such grossly oversimplified and inaccurate computations so I don't think I'm being unfair to hold this publication to the same standard.
Pro Libertate | February 27, 2006, 11:54am | #
fyodor, you mean the real Seattle sound?Slugger | February 27, 2006, 11:55am | #
I'm a 60 year old professional financially successful baby boomer. I will gladly trade my material goods to be 25, poor, and have a shot at building a life, and so would most of us.Where is Satan when you really need him; I'm ready to deal.
Tim Cavanaugh | February 27, 2006, 11:55am | #
I chose to quit a lucrative waiter career (really good tips and reasonable hours) to be a full-time student. Had I stayed a waiter and went to school part-time,That's some school you went to, wear they didn't even teach you that it's "Had I stayed a waiter and gone to school..."
emme | February 27, 2006, 11:58am | #
"That's some school you went to, wear they didn't even teach you that it's "Had I stayed a waiter and gone to school..." "Tim Cavanaugh: Pompous grammatical hall monitor of Hit & Run.
quasibill | February 27, 2006, 12:01pm | #
I think you guys are missing the point about selection bias. 40 years ago, college was for the relatively elite (in terms of smarts) few. Nowadays, it's only the bottom 20% or so that don't go on to more schooling.So when you're comparing college grads to non-college grads, you are comparing, in general, to the bottom 20%. Do you think that that group does well in general? You could improve the validity of the data by controlling with a comparison of those who get As and Bs in high school with those who get Cs and Ds (on average). If the numbers are equavilent between that comparison and the college v. high school comparison, then the study doesn't tell you too much about the value of the college education.
That said, obviously, someone who goes to college and gets a skill (engineering etc.) will be much better off than someone who doesn't, in general. The question you need to ask, however, is whether you are better off getting a degree in sociology, etc., if you aren't going to pursue a true career in the field, than you would be not going to college. Especially if you're going to wrack up 100k in debt to do it.
I know more than a few people who are administrative assistants with their B.A.s who will tell you they wish they had gone to trade school. And you can't "swing a cat" without hitting someone who wishes he or she hadn't gone to law school...
emme | February 27, 2006, 12:07pm | #
"And you can't "swing a cat" without hitting someone who wishes he or she hadn't gone to law school..."Being a recent grad from law school I know this is true. But there are many reasons people regret going to law school. Only one of which is for financial reasons.
The Real Bill | February 27, 2006, 12:08pm | #
Damn, Cavanaugh, I've been up all night. By the way, I'm an editor, so that hurts. Nonetheless, I bet solving simple algebraic equations would make you cry, yet I could solve them in my sleep.The Real Bill | February 27, 2006, 12:11pm | #
I give up. I should never post when tired. My grammar skills are the first thing to go.thoreau | February 27, 2006, 12:12pm | #
quasibill-Having taught in a trade school I'd be the first to agree that more people should consider the benefits of trade school over college.
However, teaching at a trade school also taught me something about the value of liberal arts education: I taught optics for photographers. But I also preferred students who had already taken some liberal arts classes (the school also had a general education curriculum). Why? Because they had better writing skills.
There is a real value to taking classes where you have to read, analyze, write, and debate. I didn't like the content of some of my liberal arts classes in college, but I am a firm believer in making students take classes where they have to do lots of reading, writing, and analyzing. Whether they read classics by dead white males or radical feminist poetry or whatever, if they have to do lots of reading and writing they'll be better off.
I think a lot of people would benefit from a good technical/trade education, coupled with some general education in the liberal arts to sharpen their writing skills.
One also has to factor in the "non-monetary" benefits of college: partying, making-friends, etc. I certainly wish I could do it all again!
jp | February 27, 2006, 12:48pm | #
Tim Cavanaugh said at 11:04: "Interestingly, when I got out of college in 1992, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody who was direly pronouncing that my generation, the doomed x-ers, were the 'first generation in American history to do worse than our parents.' Plus ca change..."I graduated 10 years before that, and pundits were spouting the same thing even then.
independent worm | February 27, 2006, 1:27pm | #
Shouldn't that be "where they didn't even teach you..."Right. And perhaps more to the point, what kind of college did Tim go to that would teach things like grammar and sentence structure anyway?
English classes are supposed to be about exposing authors' secret homosexual messages or screeching outrage at how late 19th century American literature blatantly underrepresents the many significant Chicano contributions to the Reconstruction.
Ammonium | February 27, 2006, 1:33pm | #
I think the big problem here is that economic downturns especially hurt the young. Before the dot.com crash, people were getting enormous sums of money upon graduation (or even without graduating). I was offered a job that paid a lot less than the average grad from my school, so I decided to go to grad school. Then the bubble burst and that job offer looked great.A lot of the people who got the great jobs lost them. But they got new jobs much more quickly. Companies generally prefer to hire somebody who was at Enron for a couple of years over somebody with no experience.
The college recruiting market is extremely elastic. After 2001, recruiting activity at my college dropped to a fraction of what it was when I got my offer. If you don't get recruited, you're very screwed -- there are few entry level jobs out there, and those jobs that might take people just out of school are flooded by experienced people who are out of work.
My sister graduated from college a couple years after me and managed to get a job through recruiting. A couple weeks into the job, they laid off half the workforce. It took her awhile to get another job since she no longer had access to on-campus recruiting. But she got one faster than her friends who struck out at campus recruiting, probably because being recruited by a major company and working two weeks was a signal that she wasn't a loser, like her friends might be.
quasibill | February 27, 2006, 1:40pm | #
Thoreau -I agree totally, but isn't that more of an indictment of their secondary (or even primary) education? Shouldn't you be able to read and write fairly well by the time you've gone through 12 years of schooling?
Furthermore, I think you can teach writing even in the sciences. My wife is a science teacher, and she does a lot of work making sure the kids can write a technical paper. I myself taught an intra-corporate class on technical writing (I called it writing with a purpose, but I think that might infringe a copyright somewhere) because our VP was getting tired of the long-winded, rambling, poorly worded reports she was getting.
I don't necessarily think liberal arts classes are a necessity to teach effective writing. In fact, some of my friends claim that their training in poli sci classes (essentially, use a lot of filler to meet minimum page requirements) hampered their writing when they entered law school (where they needed to get important information across constrained by a maximum page limit).
Jason Ligon | February 27, 2006, 1:46pm | #
This is mostly a regurgitated thread, but still. I believe that a broad based education of the sort liberal arts schools provide is an increasingly valuable asset as the economy continues to evolve.I don't think everyone should have one, and I do think that trade schools are under utilized by those who shouldn't be going to school anyway, but with those qualifiers in place, I would argue that the days of 'learning a skill' in undergrad are numbered. Highly specialized skills and professional degrees will be learned in graduate programs or tailored 5 year programs, while undergraduate education that trains you to be versatile will be more valued than skills based undergrad only degrees.
In a world where a million Indian college graduates come out every year with skills degrees; where remote (read offshore) processing, support, coding, and development can be done with relative ease; and where 10 years at a given profession makes you the oldest guy on site; learning a skill that can be learned at an undergraduate level will not maximize your career potential. Automatable skills will be automated and non automatable skills will be moved to the lowest cost provider of those skills.
What jobs are left for the non professional degree holder? Consultation, for the most part. Consultative sales, process consultation, personnel consultation, and, yes, technical consultation. The key skills of the consultant are not at the schematic level but are in the persuasive presentation of ideas, and the knowlege of macro features, macro costs, and macro benefits.
I believe we have reached the limit where deep knowledge provides greater opportuninty in general. In cases it might, but to the extent there is an opportunity cost in attaining deep knowledge, we should be careful to ensure that we have enough breadth to do what we want to do.
thoreau | February 27, 2006, 1:56pm | #
quasi-I competely agree that high schools should do a better job, but no matter how good of an education you've received there's always room to sharpen your writing skills. And my hunch is that even a fairly good high school background still leaves room for significant improvement of writing skills.
And I completely agree that science instructors should emphasize writing skills. I certainly critiqued papers based on writing.
However, I still think that liberal arts classes are good places for sharpening writing skills, and better for the task than science classes. Ideally all elements of the curriculum should emphasize writing and other communication skills, but some classes will provide better opportunities for that than others.
Jason Ligon | February 27, 2006, 2:11pm | #
I quibble that the only area of concern is writing skills. Presenting to non technical audiences, persuasive argumentation, marketing or sales, economics and finance all come to mind as potential problem areas.The hard sciences teach you to think clearly, but they don't help you communicate clearly or help you figure out cost benefit analysis with customer perspectives in mind for example.
thoreau | February 27, 2006, 2:22pm | #
Jason-I completely agree that writing isn't the only valuable skill that technical majors lack. I simply mentioned it because it seems to be the most marketable of the skills learned in liberal arts classes. Although a good liberal arts background could certainly develop argumentation and presentation skills, and no doubt other marketable skills as well.
independent worm | February 27, 2006, 3:14pm | #
The key skills of the consultant are not at the schematic level but are in the persuasive presentation of ideas, and the knowlege of macro features, macro costs, and macro benefits.I think the real key skills of the consultant are convincing people to hire them, and convincing people to pay them.
quasibill | February 27, 2006, 3:21pm | #
Jason -I actually agree with your main thrust, but at the same time, you do need some skill to start with, whether it be innate (e.g. a born salesman) or learned. You have to have something that is valuable to another person. If it is nothing more than what any other warm body can contribute, you're going to get paid accordingly.
That said, I'm in full agreement with anyone who says that the most important aspects of being successful are not learned in the classroom. I can't count the number of people who came into our lab with 4.0 gpas in undergrad chemistry (and some with M.S.s and Ph.D.s) who were absolute bombs in our industrial R&D lab. And certainly flexibility is an important asset when change is a given.
"I think the real key skills of the consultant are convincing people to hire them, and convincing people to pay them"
In the end, that is the only key skill of anyone.
Stevo Darkly | February 27, 2006, 3:37pm | #
I chose to quit a lucrative waiter career (really good tips and reasonable hours) to be a full-time student. Had I stayed a waiter and went to school part-time,That's some school you went to, wear they didn't even teach you that it's "Had I stayed a waiter and gone to school..."
I spent my morning proofreading part of an annual report for a leading global corporation in an industry with an incredibly stodgy image, so I think I can say with a certain pompous authority that it should be, "Had I staid a waiter and gone-ta school ..."
Stevo Darkly | February 27, 2006, 4:12pm | #
Oops, "gone-ta" should be "gone-tuh." I was thinking of the bilabial lubricative form, whereas the clause above properly requires a conjuctive jerboa.Jason Ligon | February 27, 2006, 4:20pm | #
quasi:I agree. I'm not suggesting that skill-less is good, I'm suggesting that there is a suite of skills provided by a broad approach that in combination will be more valuable over time than most narrow but deep skills people might have chosen to learn in undergrad 10 years ago.
The broad based education in the marketplace is going to give you a lower entry point in many cases, but if you spend your time learning the industry you wind up in, you can move along pretty rapidly.
Tim Cavanaugh | February 27, 2006, 4:23pm | #
All right, I'm dum.Pro Libertate | February 27, 2006, 4:25pm | #
Eric, of course, that's the other Seattle sound. I was referring to Hendrix, however.I'm an '05 ivy league graduate with around 90k in loans (my parents didn't pay the parental contribution part). I was an econ major but I've yet to find a job so I'm working as a $12 an hour temp. I can't go to b-school because b-schools want you to have work experience. I know the response is going to be "you should've gone to a cheaper school, but I'm not necessarily complaining about my situation.
Curious | February 27, 2006, 4:52pm | #
NF,Can't your freshman year roomate's dad get you a starting job or perhaps some other contact? I'm not trying to be snarky, but I always thought that was a benefit of an ivy league education which I didnt get at the state school I attended.
Lemur | February 27, 2006, 4:58pm | #
NF - I went straight from an econ major to business school with no work experience, mostly as a means of extending my college years. In fact, not only was I accepted into one of the top 20 business schools in the country, but I was also given a full-ride scholarship and an $8k a year stipend. So, it is possible to go straight to business school...More on topic - if you choose to go to a school which is not the "best" school you can get into, you can get most of your tuition paid through scholarships. My parents didn't pay one dime, and I still managed to go to a private $30k a year school, then straight to business school, without accumulating any significant debt.
I was accepted into Wharton, but opted for Emory... hasn't seemed to have hurt me any.
Jason Ligon | February 27, 2006, 5:12pm | #
MBA programs are two tiered in my experience. There is Top Shelf and Everything Else. I'm not convinced that an Everything Else MBA gets you anything at all, whereas you can do much from a top school. I'm fuzzy on where that line is, but the value of the MBA in the marketplace drops off dramatically at a certain point.emme-care to elaborate? I'm graduating soon, and law school has come up as an option. Would be nice to hear if it's a complete waste or just mostly one.
Paul | February 27, 2006, 5:20pm | #
Hmm, I married into student debt... so I get the best of both worlds:No college education for me, but all the debt. My wifes occupation: Social worker. I wish she'd have done Women's Studies-- so much more lucrative.
That sound you hear: My forehead hitting my monitor.
emme | February 27, 2006, 5:29pm | #
"care to elaborate? I'm graduating soon, and law school has come up as an option. Would be nice to hear if it's a complete waste or just mostly one."It depends on what you want to do. One thing I noticed is that a lot of students in law school ended up there because there was nothing they could do with their poli-sci, philosophy, fill in the blank degree. In my opinion that's not a good reason to go to law school.
The other thing about law school is some students go into it wanting to practice a specific area of the law and after graduation find that specific area difficult to break into. So in the mean time they'll practice in another unrelated area and absolutely hate it. (In the mean time there's also a fear of getting pigeonholed if you're in the field you don't want to be in for too long. Not sure yet if that's a valid fear or not.) I did personal injury work for 2 months and came really close to slitting my wrists. I wanted to do transactional real estate. But jobs in that area don't just pop all the time, especially if you're green. P.I. litigation work, whether plaintiff or defendant, is pretty much always available, and in my opinion, pretty much always sucks.
Do you know what field you want to practice in? What schools?
Douglas Fletcher | February 27, 2006, 5:53pm | #
If we're all so smart, why ain't we rich?Paul | February 27, 2006, 6:37pm | #
That's some school you went to, wear they didn't even teach you that it's "Had I stayed a waiter and gone to school..."You know, Mr. Cavanaugh, it's possible he had a major other than Women's Studies and English.
Paul | February 27, 2006, 6:45pm | #
If we're all so smart, why ain't we rich?What, are ya kiddin' me? Because we haven't yet tapped into the lucrative market of 'woe is me' (or maybe that should be, Whoa is me) confessional auto-biography writing.
Believe me, I'm workin' on it though. Let me run a couple of titles by ya:
Gen-X Reflex or How the Government Abandoned Me.
Bright Outlook: Dimmed by lack of Government Entitlements.
What Could Have Been: How Generation-Y Stole Our Thunder.
Hmm, I just can't muster the energy to keep this thread going.
I'd like to do dispute resolution of some stripe; which exactly I'm not certain. Pepperdine offers a program to get a Masters in Dispute Resolution and a JD at the same time, a possibility that appealed to me before I started to question it's value. Now I'm not sure. It would be interesting and I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy spending the next 15+ years of my life doing it, but I don't want to do it if, as you point out, I'll just wind up doing personal injury for the rest of my life.
quasibill | February 27, 2006, 7:50pm | #
Shem,In my experience, dispute resolution's going to be hard to break into. Generally, you're going to need to establish a reputation somewhere as hard-working, even-handed, and intellectual. Beyond that, it is even helpful to have 'deep' experience in a given area - construction is a big one, as is complex transactional.
Quite often these days, the big arbitrators are ex-judges or ex-named partners. Not saying that that is the only route, but it's a common one. You could luck into a decent position, but don't count on it. So if you don't want to bust hump 90 hours a week as an associate in a big firm (you'll get paid well, at least) doing something you hate, I recommend looking into developing another area that you want to practice in (again, construction and complex commercial would be good options) and then plan on practicing in it at least 10 years before being able to make ADR your major focus.
The other advice I have is keep your debt LOW. The golden handcuffs can make you one miserable SOB - which is why practicing can suck so much - almost everyone you deal with - other lawyers, judges, and clients are miserable SOBs. It helps to be able to laugh at them instead of identifying with them...
rich | February 27, 2006, 8:42pm | #
9 to 5 temp job paying $18 an hour?Man, i wish i was making that kinda money.
independent worm | February 28, 2006, 10:30am | #
Shem -- I wouldn't recommened anyone going to law school right now unless it's an Ivy or another top school like Duke, Stanford or Georgetown. The expense, the downtime (3 years of no income) and the low starting salaries just don't justify the move. Economically, anyway.Now, if you just want that degree so you can devote your life to advancing the cause of liberty through decades of gadflying, windmill-tilting, and pro bono Bill of Rights litigating, then I say, go for it, because we need more people like that!!
starrjordan | February 28, 2006, 3:18pm | #
The million dollar payoff from a college degree INCLUDES opportunity costs. In fact, the amount of income lost (not earned) while someone is in school is more than tuition, room and board for most people, according to a recent study by economists from the Federal Reserve and Princeton.starrjordan | February 28, 2006, 3:34pm | #
"I do wonder, though: money doesn't just fall from trees. Are student loan interest rates distorted downward by taxpayer subsidizing? I just don't know enough about the ins and outs. Even though I DID consolidate with a private lender, the only reason I was able to get a low rate with them is because the DoE set their rates so low.So, isn't everyone else paying for us to have these low interest rates, Tim? Just curious."
Yes, since 1965 taxpayers have helped offset the cost of student loans in two important ways.
Taxpayers pay the interest on loans while the student is in school. If you borrowed from a private lender, the government reimburses the lender for the lost interest. Students do not have to begin paying back his or her loan until a few months after they graduate.
Second, the interest rate is lower. No one would lend an individual with no credit history, regular income or assets at the current interest rates on federal loans.
The result of this taxpayer investment? The number of college graduates tripled, making the U.S. the most educated nation in the world. Whatever economic and social mobility we have had can largely be explained by our educational achievement.
Isaac Bartram | March 1, 2006, 12:05pm | #
The number of college graduates tripled, making the U.S. the most educated nation in the world.The most schooled at any rate. An awful lot of college graduates are not well educated.
