Rising Law School Tuitions Prompt Ideas for Federal Student Loan Reform

• Pages: 64-64

64 || ABA JOURNAL APRIL 2018

Rising Law School

Tuitions Prompt

Ideas for Federal

Student Loan

Reform

Stephen Daniels (top) of the

American Bar Foundation

and Barry Currier of the

Section of Legal Education

and Admissions to the Bar

at “The Perennial (and

Stubborn) Challenge of Cost,

A ordability and Access in

Legal Education: Has It

Finally Hit the Fan?”

Your ABA || MIDY EAR MEETING REPORT

Could reforming federal student-

loan programs be a way to ha lt

the skyrocketing cost of attend-

ing law school? At the 201 8 ABA Midyear

Meeting, the American Bar Foundation

gathered a panel to disc uss the issue in

“The Perennial (and Stubborn) Challenge

of Cost, Affordabil ity and Access in Legal

Education: Has It Fin ally Hit the Fan?”

“If I have to put the blam e for the title of

this panel on any one p lace, I would put it

on these student loan p rograms and the

fact that they are basic ally unregulated,

really, in terms of the amoun t,” said Barry

Currier, the ABA’s managing director

of accreditation and legal education.

“The students can b orrow as much

money through those pro grams as they

want,” Currier said . “So if Harva rd Law

School or New Engla nd Law School

said, ‘Tuition at our sch ool next year

is $200,000, an d living expenses are

$50,000,’ the federal government

wouldn’t say, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me! ’

They would say, ‘Where can we s end that

check for $250,000?’ ”

THE PROSPER ACT

Currier made sure to men tion he was

not speaking for the co uncil of the Section

of Legal Education a nd Admissions to the

Bar. “I’m here on my own behalf.” And h e

also issued the caveat th at the jury was still

out on whether tuition increases were con-

clusively driven by the federal student-loan

programs. “Bu t I think if you had to pick

one place, that ’d be where I would go.”

Currier and Stephen Daniels, a senior

research professor at the Am erican Bar

Foundation, both drew attention to a

current bill that would a ffect federal stu-

dent-loan programs and potentially cause

havoc for law schools and l aw students. HR

4508, the Promotin g Real Opportunity,

Success and Prosperity through Education

Reform Act, was introduc ed in the House

of Representatives in December.

“That bill, as currently written, eliminates

the loan forgiveness pro grams that are

now in effect, and it p uts a cap on student

borrowing for gradua te and professional

education of $28, 500 a year,” Currier

said. “And I venture to say that if a ca p of

$28,500 per yea r were put on law school

borrowing through the federal student-

loan programs, on e of two things would

happen: A lot of stude nts would then not go

to law school because t hey couldn’t afford

it. Or the interest rate th ey would have to

borrow on the private loa n that they would

have to take out to supplement th at would

be at a rate of interest that woul d make it

really diffi cult to ju stify the decision to go

to law school.”

‘PIE IN THE SKY’ SUGGESTIONS

Asked by an audience mem ber how he

would approach reform ing the federal

student-loan programs, Currier had four

suggestions, so me of which he admitted

were “pie in the sky.”

• The federal government could decide

to reduce the profi t margin i t takes on

student loans.

• States could reinvest in legal education

as a way to increase access to jus tice.

• Law schools could be a llowed to limit

the amount their stu dents could take out

in loans.

• Risk could be shared b etween the

federal government and law schools, so

that if a student defaul ted on their loan,

the federal government would recoup

some of the money from the s chool.

“Let the schools have a little bit of skin

in the game,” Currier s aid of this last

suggestion. “That might trim the school’s

appetite for taking students that they

aren’t sure can gra duate and pass the

bar and get a good job.” — L.R.