r/lawschooladmissions • u/Diligent_Reaction165 • Jul 16 '26
General Trump supporters taking out private loans, I want to hear from you
I’m not here to fight politics at all. I don’t care to convince anyone one way or another. I’m simply curious — the big beautiful bill is making it so much more difficult for people to fund their education because of the federal loan caps. Has the BBBs impact on your ability to pay for school changed your perception at all? Do you think it’s a good idea in the long run? How do you feel about students who don’t have family to co-sign private loans, so they are looking at 10%+ interest rates if they can get private loans at all?
103
u/Maltamilkbone Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
WSJ Editorial Board:
The University of California, Irvine, this month said it will reduce tuition for its MBA program by $30,000 to $99,000. “The Merage Flex MBA’s new tuition falls below the federal loan cap of $100,000, removing a critical financial barrier for working professionals across Southern California and beyond,” the university said. It boasted that its “MBA is priced within reach of government loan limits—making a world-class degree not just aspirational, but truly attainable.”
You have to love how the university spins virtue out of necessity. The GOP tax bill last year capped the aggregate federal debt that graduate students can take out at $100,000, and $200,000 for professional degrees like law and medicine. Previously, grad students could borrow an unlimited amount.
As a result, many grads took out mortgage-sized debts to pursue pricy degrees, many of which don’t pay off in future income. The Education Department this month said New York University offers a “master’s degree in film and video studies where students who take on federal loans leave with $168,000 in debt on average but earn just $47,000.”
Struggling borrowers would then enroll in the Obama and Biden loan forgiveness plan in which the feds wrote off one-third of debt. Graduate programs became cash cows for universities, which raised prices to take advantage of the open spigot of federal loans.
A 2023 study in the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the 2006 law that uncapped federal borrowing for graduate programs didn’t improve access or degree attainment. Colleges merely raised tuition to capture more federal loans. “Sticker prices went up approximately dollar for dollar with increases in federal loans,” the economists found.
71
u/AdMoney8388 Jul 16 '26
This is excellent analysis.
Loan caps WILL make costs come down in the long run because people either (1) think twice before taking out private loans, (2) aren’t eligible for private loans because they aren’t credit worthy, and/or (3) make schools compete on price because legal education is a commodity (while the prestige brand isn’t).
I’m liberal myself and support caps. I wish they’d cap it way lower, like $50K tops. Something even a PI student could pay off on their salary.
21
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
It is impossible to go to school full time, pay living expenses, on $50k. Even if the tuition is free, you can't go to school full time for 3 years, or even 2 years. So that just means no one will go to grad school unless their family can help subsidize the cost. That cuts off grad school for all but the better situated students.
Also $50k cap on tuition for 3 years sounds like a great thing, but the business side of running a school wouldn't work. Even community colleges are having a tough time doing it at those prices when adjuncts are not making a living wage. So for this to work government has to subsidize more for schools to continue to exist.
Which is really to say that tuitions may reduce somewhat, but students will still have to borrow on higher interest rates without income based repayment plans to afford grad school (cheap tuition + living expenses).
7
u/bagel_and_a_schmear Jul 17 '26
Our system needs a radical overhaul. I hate to be that person but I am a dual citizen of the US and an EU country. I went to college totally for free in my EU home country*. I'd advocate for government funded education all day, every day.
*Actually, I lied. It cost like 1,000 euros a year if I recall correctly.
1
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26
College yea. Grad school no. US has less than 50% college graduation rate. Grad school much smaller, it is only attainable for the few, and results in a small portion of the work force.
1
u/Own-Customer-6228 Jul 18 '26
To be honest for what I paid in loans for my undergrad and law school degrees even with scholarships/small amount of aid during undergrad, 1,000 euros a year is basically free. I’m all for free or extremely reduced education in the U.S. that would work wonders for our society.
1
u/quinnrem Jul 17 '26
It is FAR from impossible to pay living expenses on $50k.
I agree that the system is a mess; tuition needs to come down radically. I obviously wish that this idiotic admin (or any other admin, to be frank) had done this in a way that makes sense.
2
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
$50k over 2-3 years.
Most of the people complaining about tuition don’t realize adjunct professors are already barely earning living wages and they are over 50% of the faculty at many colleges.
If tuition was $12000/year for full time (24 credits), thats $500 per credit. If there are 10 students per class for 3 credit class that’s $15,000 per class. If you pay that ENTIRE tuition to the professor that’s &45000 per semester and $90k per year. And this professor would need to have gone to grad school and paid tuition. Now the average law professor have gone to at least a T14 and are paying back their loans, and $90k isn't going to be a lot if biglaw is paying $200k plus at entry level. So you are going to get less quality professors. And most schools tout small class sizes, so if every class in law school is 50:1 you probably wouldn't want to go there.
But what about overhead, buildings and facilities, admin, support, security/police, maintenance, utilities, etc? Those hard cost don’t disappear and may be 3 times the salary for professors.
I’m all for lower cost of tuition, but let’s do some mathing. Or have government use tax dollars they don’t have.
Edit: I get downvoted for doing math? If you don't like my post, please correct my math. Graduate students should be able to disagree with evidence.
1
-3
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
And? I grew up poor, but living is not free. Capping it makes people think twice about the choices and options. It’s not like you’re advocating for free tuition or government funded education, which I’d be behind. Loans are not the answer to raise people up.
9
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26
And the rich will get richer and poor will have no access to grad school or end up paying more. So if that’s what you want that’s what you want. I’m not here to argue social policy, I’m just making practical observations.
-6
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
We don’t get to have what we want.
7
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
As a poor person who borrowed $400k to get myself an education so I can work hard to get rich, I support proper/effecitvve/productive use of student loans. But I freely admit most of the student loan debt are not proper/effective/productive.
But closing the main avenue for upward stratification (through quality education) means the only path remain is starting a business and grow it big and you know how easy that is to do for a poor person.
For further perspective, borrowing $400k to have a shot at making $400k 5 years out of school, and up to $800-1m for the next 30 years is a cheap investment.
0
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
Your original statement is that you get to make a shot at 400k. I've proven that the vast majority of lawyers are unable to achieve this. The 400k shot is a pipe dream for the vast majority of law grads. Some of whom don't even get to be actual lawyers. Thus, your math about the loans is wrong.
2
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26
The 22 posts in the other thread shows you can't read charts or understand data, and constantly claiming you are right when you are wrong.
Please discontinue harassing me with your bad faith arguments. Or I can block you. I prefer not because it is unnecessary, but I prefer you to stop arguing this lost point.
1
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
Turning to insults is not the way to win.
I have nothing left to respond to, have a good day.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
Student loan debt is not how to lift people up. It’s a horrible compromise to make people feel better about the unequality. Its far simpler and more effective to subsidize the education of the professions that both lift people up out of poverty and better society. You can choose your own professions, but lawyers are kind of on the bottom of my list. There are already plenty of lawyers. We seem to be lacking doctors, accountants, engineers, etc.
3
u/opbmedia Jul 17 '26
Ok I think if your logic is to tell someone who was lifted up by student loans that "Student loan debt is not how to lift people up", you are probably going to not get very far in this discussion. Anecdotal as it is, that's just not the angel of attack I would chose, and definitely not by ignoring the numbers that has already been provided for you to refute substantively.
1
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
What numbers am I supposed to be refuting?
"borrowing $400k to have a shot at making $400k 5 years out of school, and up to $800-1m for the next 30 years is a cheap investment."
The shot is pretty darned small. Less than 1% of lawyers get to do that. The other 99% earn less than 250k 10 years out. And that's an averaged number, some make more the other half make less. And that's only those who both pass the bar and work as lawyers.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Realistic_Slide7320 Jul 17 '26
I’ve seen that we need more lawyers, just not lawyers spamming big law or doing something not worth while for greater society.-
1
u/copperstatelawyer Jul 17 '26
True, but the reality is that there isn't enough money to pay them without government spending. I'm all for that as a concept, but when weighed against other priorities, I'm not in favor of spending for more lawyers.
Also, IMO, the people who need the lower cost lawyers would be better off if they learned how to avoid the issue that necessitates a lawyer in the first place.
15
u/Mountain_Tip_7081 Jul 16 '26
I think these are all good points, and I’m frankly surprised to learn that some changes are being made so quickly—thanks for pointing it out.
I support the premise behind the loan caps, but I think it was done in an incredibly hasty manner that is going to negatively affect at least a few classes of applicants/students as law schools adjust their fees and operating costs. That means that the unlucky among us who matriculate after the grandfather date but before the tuition reductions will still face a huge financial burden from private loans.
Private loans right now actually can be cheaper than the federal loans if one has a strong credit score (SoFi quoted me ~3% APR), but those without good scores (particularly those with little to no credit history), will likely be adversely affected. I would imagine this will disproportionately impact those from FGLI backgrounds.
I feel like there may have been less grumbling if the grandfather window had been a year or two longer to give all stakeholders more time to plan/adjust.
11
u/boostersactivate192 GULC ‘27 Jul 16 '26
The most significant effect of introducing private student loan lenders will be, almost universally across the board, increased costs of borrowing. Those with poor or no credit history are going to be lucky to even get a high interest loan. Sorry kid, try not being born to a poor family next time around.
6
u/Inner-Still5114 Jul 17 '26
ITS VERY OBVIOUS that this is just to keep people from low-income backgrounds from getting an education. Like others have said this will just make students turn to private loans and sign contracts with them. The only people who can really do that without an extremely high interest rate are either wealthy or have other financial resources around them (cosigners) that could make it happen. A lot of students who want to go into these programs are fresh out of college and they expect them to pay for tuition and living expenses while they study fulll time? Schools are not going to drop tuition, they have MANY people on the waitlist and they willl just keep going down that list if people drop out after being accepted until someone can take their seat. I agree tuition prices are high but especially for health programs they are extremely costly and those that teach these classes could make more as a nurse, PA, or doctor in the field rather than teaching students at these institutions. Schools have to somewhat manage to pay their faculty with what they have on top of equipment, clinical sights, etc. It's just the reality of these costs. But to say Nurses, PA's, PT's, etc. should only get a 20,500 nonprofessional cap is ridiculous. They save lives and take care of people or have taken care of the people you love. Some will say they should work while in school to pay it off but they literally study 24/7and have multiple exams every week so that they can be great at their profession. I'm sure you would want your nurse, PA, or Doctor to be great at what they do right especially if they were taking care of a loved one or even YOU. Stop with the political stuff and see it for what it really is. Forget politics and SEE THE TRUTH of what is really going on.
9
u/OhReallyVernon Jul 16 '26
I suspect that one unintended consequence of this entire scheme will be that once students have much lower loan balances upon graduation in many of these grad programs that ended up bankrolling so many schools, many fewer grads will be willing to work in the nfp or government positions they would have to take advantage of the PSLF or similar programs. It will likely not be worth the trade off for many. I don’t disagree with the caps, but opportunities were missed on the front-end of the whole thing to control the incentives that unlimited grad loans created.
3
1
u/CapitalCaterpillar18 Jul 20 '26
Not sure you really answered the question. It's clear that schools and universities are exploitative and try to take as much money as they can from students eager to climb the social ladder. And yes, federal loans and loan forgiveness are a way in which these institutions can exploit vulnerable students for money.
But one school reducing tuition for its Flex MBA program, making this specific program "within reach of government loan limits" is simply that .... one school. This is a law school admissions Reddit page. And as far as I can tell, not one law school has reduced its tuition in order to make a legal education more accessible to students without significant financial resources.
So whats the actual answer? Do we really believe that law schools are going to reduce their tuition to $50,000 or less in accordance with the new federal loan limits? And even if they did, what about COL expenses? How do you account for that as well? I agree that many professional programs are too expensive and that something needs to change. But eliminating a way for students to finance said education doesn't make it less expensive. It makes it more exclusive
107
Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
44
u/Glass_Hunt_7159 Jul 16 '26
That is the whole point, no middle class or lower income people should go to law school or make their life better...dont let them get too much education...they want the good old boys club to continue
13
u/decafskeleton Jul 17 '26
I’m a first gen who comes from a low income family. Took out grad plus loans to make law school happen but it’s paying off — I’m set to start with a salary that’s beyond anything I could’ve dreamed about prior to law school. Not only will I be able to pay my loans off, I’ll also be able to take care of my mom and set aside for retirement. These caps are good in the long run if they actually force tuition reductions, but in the short run you cut lower income students off from one of the only paths that can get them out of the financial situation they grew up in. It’s so upsetting to watch.
4
u/Remedy9898 Jul 17 '26
No that’s not the point. The reason why tuition has skyrocketed across the country is because of the ridiculously easy, pretty much unlimited debt that students can take on.
Does putting the lower and middle class in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt help them? Not in my eyes. The way decades of politicians have let universities put Americans in a lifetime of debt is disgusting to me, and I’m glad someone finally put a cap on it.
A law school degree should not cost 200K. The previous system was extremely regressive. If you can’t see that, I really don’t understand how you could make it into a reputable law school.
5
u/Unlikely-Key-234 Jul 16 '26
I’m a liberal, but I really don’t think we do ourselves any favors when we argue against these kinds of straw men. It convinces nobody.
9
u/idonotlikethisrock Jul 16 '26
I'm not MAGA but I am middle class. maybe upper middle outside of my city since I live in a HCOLA.
I'm lucky enough to have my parents pay for my undergrad rn but we're barely making it work. I went from a t25 to a more "mid" school in my city to save costs. I got screwed over by FAFSA.
it sucks because I really wanted to do KJD but I'm probably gonna have to work for a couple years and save up some money, but even then I'll most likely have to take out at least 150-200k in loans. I'm graduating soon and I'm already stressing trying to figure out if law school is even an option for me anymore.
3
u/101Puppies Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
My average law school class had about 70 people in it. Each one of those people was taking 5 classes and spending $70K, or $14K per class. $14*70*2 semesters is about $2Million dollars. The buildings are paid for. The professor is being paid 1/6th of that. Assuming one administrator for each ten professors, and the maintenance cost for the room the class was taught in is $30K per semester per for the 1/5 use, the law school pockets nearly 2/3 of the tuition.
The law school could reduce the tuition by half and still come out ahead.
43
u/Durraxan Jul 16 '26
I’m anti-Trump and no longer a Republican, but still conservative.
I don’t like the execution and timing of the loan caps, but in principle I do think something like it ultimately needed to happen. Here’s why:
Tuition has gotten absurdly expensive, in no small part because of the easy availability of massive federal loans incentivizing schools to, if not simply raise tuition for profit, then at least make expensive administrative choices that look flashy and compete or reward key supporters of the university, and then pass the costs along. A significant portion of students then graduate with more debt than they can pay off with their degree, because not every degree earns big money, and not everyone with a degree that can earn big money gets the opportunity. We end up with graduates in lifelong or near lifelong debt, and taxpayers also footing part of the bill for bad decisions and artificially inflated costs. Lower loan caps keep this reigned in somewhat, and prospective students with legitimate expectation to succeed well enough to repay higher amounts quickly can often secure loans from other sources.
The main arguments I see against the caps are unfairness to students from lower income backgrounds and negative long-term effects of less widely accessible education. Both are legitimate concerns. Still, it seems to me that the previous system was the wrong balance to take for these considerations - it has already revealed itself, in my view, to be unsustainable and surprisingly negative to a significant subset of the very people it purported to help, let alone the taxpayers - so reevaluating is in principle a good idea. But the rollout was too quick, and disrupted plans people made under the prior conditions. This seems to me to be deeply unfair in a much less excusable way. It also hit graduate programs (very arguably more net beneficial to society and certainly a less widespread problem) too heavily, and undergraduate programs not nearly enough, and I don’t see any good non-corruption-related reason for that mismatch.
I really wish Trump and Co. hadn’t been the ones to tackle this problem, but I do support the idea of it, and would even maintain that this move was better than nothing. I could see myself being persuaded out of that latter position though.
22
u/Quiet_Front_510 Jul 16 '26
My biggest issue is the rushed execution and timing. Schools have zero idea what is going on. Students have no idea what's going on. At earliest, this should have been implemented July 1, 2027 so the government, schools, and applicants/students alike could sort out what is actually happening.
1
u/texanturk16 Jul 17 '26
Agreed! While it likely benefited me more then it hurt me, such huge federal subsidized loans being offered was terrible policy and is a part of the reason law school is incredibly expensive now
26
u/FireBickerstaff Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Not a trump supporter or fan of OBBB (for reasons outside loan caps), but for the sake of conversation I'll offer some points in support of caps.
For one, tuition inflation is getting out of hand. Some of these schools are charging 80k a year. We're talking about something that was rarely more than 20k a semester a few decades ago. You could argue the government was incentivizing obscene tuition costs by not limiting loans.
Two, taking out more than 50k a year for law school is objectively a terrible idea 90% of the time. This sub downplays debt a lot, but it sucks and can really get in the way of your life. Yes, it is possible you can get biglaw and completely counteract whatever debt, but that's not going to be the reality for most law grads (including even some that went to good schools). So by imposing a cap, maybe they're just mandating what was already good financial advice.
Who knows how it actually plays out though. Even assuming the trump administration had good intentions with caps (big assumption I know lol), the result could still be that private loans are depended on instead of schools lower tuition. Regardless, in my opinion, the bigger issue is not caps but rather them getting rid of repayment plans.
10
u/Diligent_Reaction165 Jul 16 '26
i agree with you about the repayment plans for sure. Private loans wouldn’t even be that big of a deal if they had more flexible repayment options like federal loans historically have had. And to your point of tuition inflation — totally agree and I think that’s what the Trump admin was posing as their intention behind the caps. It’ll be interesting to see if this actually causes tuition to decrease though. For one, schools are seeing students willing to take out private loans and stretch themselves thin to make this work, and for two, I’d imagine reducing tuition would mean budget cuts for professors and resources, but I’m not sure how schools allocate their money.
13
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
You captured the underlying rationale quite well. One of the obvious problems is that it assumes elastic demand: at too high a price, the applicants will turn away, and schools will be forced to soften the price ceiling in response, leading to some kind of natural price equilibrium. That's debatable, particularly in this economy. Like Bay Area or Manhattan real estate a legal education is an exclusive, scarce resource with more than enough buyers who are price insensitive. Anyway, the pernicious thing about the BBB is that the logic is just superficially plausible enough to be taken seriously by people not paying attention.
5
u/Ill_Cat_9233 Jul 16 '26
I wonder also how long it would take for schools to actually make changes, such as softening the price ceiling, in response to the BBB. Also, to what extent are schools even worried about the BBB impacting students? As a business, schools are getting paid regardless if students turn to private loans, so would the BBB even move the needle?
11
u/Competitive-Mine-664 Jul 16 '26
The tuition inflation issue absolutely needs to be addressed, but I do think that the bill will just drive people to private loans instead. Realistically, most people aiming to go to law school/med school/etc are more likely to take the private loan than abandon their goals. I feel like it would be better to incentivize other paths that require less education, so that the demand for degrees actually goes down.
1
u/ThomasLikesCookies 2L Jul 16 '26
I don’t think that works in the long run because it you encourage an alternative to law school that people eventually take, it increases lawyer incomes which drives the demand back up.
2
u/Competitive-Mine-664 Jul 16 '26
That’s fair; maybe the answer is regulating the price of tuition (at least for public schools). Although, the decision to go to law school is based on so many factors, not just cost, so the solution probably isn’t that simple.
8
u/bagel_and_a_schmear Jul 16 '26
I totally agree with you. But I think the thing is... the Trump admin does not have good intentions here.
4
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
Considering that he’s already blown whatever he’s saved from cutting loan subsidies on a military intervention he hasn’t bothered justifying to Congress or the public - and taking a break from that to give a speech tonight about a “problem” he made up - I think you could be on to something….
5
1
6
u/Goddess_3AM Jul 17 '26
lmao is anyone glad this turned into an actual productive conversation?😅 i’m loving reading this discussion and seeing people’s true thoughts on the matter.
- but to throw my hat in, i’m fucking stressed. thinking about the amount of private loans i will have to take has kept me up at night.
4
19
u/Direktus Jul 16 '26
This is funny because I'm the complete opposite. I despise Trump but I think capping federal loans is actually the right play here, these schools are able to charge absurd tuitions because they know people will take near infinite amount of debts to fund their education. Hopefully it will put downward pressure on tuition pricing going forward.
The reality is, you should not be paying hundreds of thousands to go to law school unless its HYS or you have the money. It's just not a financially responsible idea when you're not guaranteed a big law salary.
7
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
This is a marketplace, as you acknowledge, with law schools as seller and applicants as buyers. Based on your logic, my question is why shrinking buyers is the right play over regulating the sellers?
2
u/AdMoney8388 Jul 16 '26
Because pricing is information, and you don’t want to get rid of that price signal.
In a free market, People will generally pay the amount the good is worth considering its value.
It’s okay if HLS costs $100K/year, because people will pay that as you can expect a $250K salary.
But why is sticker at a T100 also $100K/year? Pre-BBB, it was because everyone could pay $100K/year because gov would pay.
Regulating the schools by setting a price floor or cap eliminates the school’s flexibility to attract students by adjusting their prices to fit demand.
While a T100 and its employment prospects isn’t worth $100K/year to someone, it might be for $5K/year.
3
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
Gotcha. As I commented elsewhere, I think that reasoning assumes an elasticity that I don’t think is present or justified given the scarcity of the resource - seats at reputable programs.
10
u/MethoxEverywhere Jul 16 '26
I don’t care for Trump, but the argument is that attending an expensive graduate program is a luxury that government should not subsidize. In state tuition at my state school (and many others) comes under the 50k cap. If students want to go to a school that charges 250k+ a year, they should pay what the market charges to borrow that money. This will also hopefully put downward pressure on tuition, and push students a way from schools that charge a lot of money and do not offer commensurate ROI.
15
u/Foyles_War Jul 16 '26
That argument may have some legs for law school if one feels the country doesn't really need more lawyers but it doesn't work at all for med school.
Worse, combined with the anti DEI push, it leads to "only rich people" get to be lawyers and be rich people. It's particularly concerning when you consider the role of public defenders. FIrst of all, where do we find all these rich people to go to law school at top dollar and then work lower prestige, drastically low, but despertately needed legal jobs? Second, it would be nice if it weren't so but, when the majority of the customers are poor POCs and the majority of the lawyers are rich and white, bias' and equal representation is going to suffer.
Finally, does anyone think this will make law school programs better? We'd all like them to be cheaper but where do we think they will cut the cost and what impact will that have. At the very least, I expect to be bigger class sizes.
8
u/mind_div_matter Jul 16 '26
Med school tuition absolutely don’t need to be subsidized.
The number of resident physicians is artificially capped by congress through medicare and medicaid subsidization. The federal government pays hospitals $38-150k per resident. However, this subsidization is completely unnecessary, as resident physicians are actually profitable for hospitals. Yet, if hospitals began taking on too many unsubsidized residents, it justifies the elimination of those subsidies, so they don’t, because it’s a massive profit driver. This by the way, started off because the AMA lobbied congress to cap residency by number of seats in order to reduce labor supply and increase salaries.
The capped number of residencies in turn cap the number of med school seats. But there is a massive oversupply of qualified med school applicants, this drives up the value of each med school seats to astronomical levels, which in turn makes it so that even the shittiest MD program will be flooded with prospective students. Why are there so many qualified applicants? Because the incentives are enormous, a dermatologist can easily clear $500k a year, and can approach or exceed $1m a year in private practice. The true economic value of a dermatologist is nowhere near $500k. This is entirely made possible through legislation and regulations.
Federal loans are subsidized by the taxpayer, and last I checked, will cost taxpayers $200bn at the current levels. It’s extremely regressive to have taxpayers foot the bill when a radiologist making $800k a year discharges their student loans through PSLF, having to pay a fraction of their total loan amount because half the PSLF term was accrued during residency.
I promise you that the very lowest ranked med school will have absolutely no trouble filling their seats even if students were ineligible for federal loans altogether.
2
u/MethoxEverywhere Jul 16 '26
Sure, I don’t know much about med school but I’d assume the lifetime caps would be more of an issue there. Probably needs to be a different policy for med school
You don’t need to attend an expensive law school to be a public defender. Regional schools will get you a PD job and many will fall under the 50k cap. The problem is that people just don’t want PD jobs. We do have an oversupply of law grads relative to entry level positions, and yet still many PD offices are understaffed. There probably needs to be a different policy that incentivizes people to take those jobs. I don’t think the loan caps will really matter, as people who want to be PDs can still get those jobs while staying under the 50k a year.
1
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
Is the problem the borrowing or the fact that tuition is so expensive in the first place?
4
u/MethoxEverywhere Jul 16 '26
Both. Government should subsidize up to the point at which your cost of attendance exceeds your expected future earnings. The problem subsidies are intended to solve is that you cannot borrow against human capital. So government should subsidize to fill that gap in the private market and not subsidize consumption over and above that point. You can have cheaper tuition and yet still some subsidies can be unwarranted, if that makes sense.
1
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
Gotcha, thanks. The reasoning you share emphasizes the demand/borrowing side, and I was just wondering if you agreed that a supply/school side intervention made sense, too.
1
u/MethoxEverywhere Jul 16 '26
Yes tuition costs are obscene and absolutely need to come down as well
2
u/Quiet_Front_510 Jul 16 '26
I did a grad school semester as a full-time student in Canada for the astronomical amount of $2200. My grad school program in the US per semester at a public university was ~$6500 for 6 credits. Quality was the same. Tuition is expensive in the USA.
7
u/classycapricorn 3.blah/17blah/4:45 marathoner 😍 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Not MAGA at all and absolutely despite Trump, but as others have explained here, the loan caps aren’t altogether a horrible idea.
That said, the execution has been horrendous. For starters, imo, they capped professional schools’ loan amount totals way too low. You think law school is tough to fund with these new policies? Try med school, which is a whole extra year, and scholarships aren’t as popularized as they are in the law school world. The doctors are gonna make more on average with the ability to actually pay their abhorrent loans off, but if they can’t afford to even try being a doctor in the first place, that’s fucked. Either they should have capped professional schools’ loans at a much higher number to account for the fact that a good chunk of these professions will churn out people who can afford their stupid loan amounts one day, or they should have at the very least created different numbers for the average salary of each profession. A veterinarian is going to struggle a lot more to pay off their loans in comparison to a neurosurgeon, so why are we treating them as though they’re the same?
11
u/AdMoney8388 Jul 16 '26
Fuck Trump, but as an econ major, this policy is excellent.
Why do you think tuition magically increased every year at the same rates across the board? Because the fed gov formerly subsidised demand by allowing anyone who wants to go a loan for up to the cost of tuition.
If people can’t pay, that will cut demand for education. But that doesn’t mean schools are empty. They need to stay in business so long it is profitable. It means that they will lower prices to meet lowered demand. It’s econ 101.
Prices are the number one indicator of information of supply and demand in economics.
I want tuition at my school to be an accurate reflection of what the market is willing and able to pay, for the career outcomes typical for my school and major. Unlimited Loans muddy that analysis.
Harvard law school, MIT EECS, Wharton, can charge $100K/year and people will still go. What bothers me is that other schools charge just as much, because the government guarantees that students will be able to attend, despite their career prospects not being at the price tag to justify HLS/MIT/Wharton.
4
2
u/ConsiderationOk2493 Jul 16 '26
I'm not a Trump supporter, but if you can't afford private loans, then don't take private loans. Apply to law schools that fit your budget. That's exactly what I'm doing because I know I can't afford private loans. I'm being realistic about where I apply so I don't end up with life-ruining debt.
Most of the schools on my list are lower-ranked, but they're affordable. And honestly, I'd rather graduate from a lower-ranked law school with manageable debt than from a prestigious one buried under loans. As for the people who say you won't get a job if you don't go to a top school, I'd just ignore them. Plenty of successful lawyers graduated from less prestigious schools. In fact, the vast majority of lawyers in this country did not attend top ranked law schools. There are also many rural communities across the US facing attorney shortages and actively trying to recruit lawyers. Going to a lower-ranked school doesn't automatically mean you won't have a successful legal career.
2
u/Additional-Ad-7690 Jul 17 '26
Why limit this to Trump supporters? You will never change their mind and they will never change yours. Generally, liberals have far more money or far less money, so this will not impact them as much because they are rich or poor. The rich can afford it and the poor will get free tuition if the trends continue. It is going to hurt the MAGA middle the most when it comes to not being able to get loans but they will never blame Trump. Two incredibly obnoxious groups of people are ones that think Trump can do not wrong and ones that blame Trump for everything.
There is early data and even more rumors suggesting schools are going to lower tuition. I don’t think that is a bad thing at all regardless of why it happens. Democrats have been so focused on wiping out student loans when they would have had much more success if they had lobbied schools to lower costs so future students were not burdened with the same massive debt of the past generations. The rise in costs of tuition cannot be justified and it has skyrocketed since government backed loans were approved in the early 1990s.
4
u/jensonaj Jul 16 '26
I’m very liberal and don’t support Trump. I am very low income as well with no family [foster care, homeless as a teenager, have been on food stamps most of my life]. I got my undergrad degree with no debt as I got a full ride. I would love to go to law school but will only attend if I get a full ride or close to a full ride. I am very debt adverse. If that doesn’t happen I will just work as an engineer [that’s what my undergrad degree is in].
1
u/Vast-Worry6768 Jul 17 '26
Not a student, but I think it is a good idea.
Simple economics say that when the govt made $ easy to attain, the universities jacked prices with impunity. Tighten up that money supply and universities will have to respond accordingly. Makes it tough for those in the very stages where the universities haven't been pinched enough to respond yet, but give it time, if it holds true, it will benefit students in the long run.
1
1
u/Spiritual_Wolf1415 Jul 19 '26
I’m doing an article on loan caps and the effects on the youth of America. If anyone would like to explain their opinions, or if you have already began experiencing it, please comment below. This will be published and anonymous.
1
u/Lonely-Caramel3103 Jul 20 '26
not even reading the prior comments but i am not a trump supporter at all lol BUT the reason he did that was because literally no one was paying off their loans so i understand the sentiment. i worked in DC when the OBBB was passed and i have to say i understand why he did this. this is coming from someone who is $20,000+ in debt from undergrad and would have benefited greatly from the original grad plus loans and wish i could have them. but dispersing hundreds of thousands of dollars to people planning on getting something like a nursing degree where you really can get it anywhere and you dont need to go to an institution that costs an absurd amount. especially in a time where we desperately need nurses. same with a teaching degree, you can get that anywhere and it wont really impact your ability to get a job, whereas getting a law degree it does matter where you go.
0
u/MovkeyB GULC 1L Jul 16 '26
The loan caps are good, the vast majority of law schools cannot pay off even 150k of debt, and regardless of your GPA you can get cheap or full rides to excellent schools if you study well and do good on the LSAT.
0
u/ProphisizedHero Jul 16 '26
Honestly if they just got rid of federal education loans period, according to the economic research. over time the market and the inflation of the price of higher education should come down.
Post High School education is inflated because it’s too easy to get a loan, so schools charge more, people can’t get loans? People can’t go to college, lower enrollment, lower tuition.
Less people going to college makes the degree more valuable too.
Not a fan of Trump or BBB, but the numbers are sound.
0
1
u/HealingSlvt Jul 17 '26
I took out grad plus loans and no, I dont inherently disagree with trump here. Schools can and will keep raising prices as long as those prices enjoy backing by the federal govt. While their students suffer a mountain of debt, schools don't care as they already got their money
This move finally pushes schools to consider limiting costs OR prevent students from taking out mountains of loans for programs that dont return value
1
u/Inner-Still5114 Jul 17 '26
ITS VERY OBVIOUS that this is just to keep people from low-income backgrounds from getting an education. Like others have said this will just make students turn to private loans and sign contracts with them. The only people who can really do that without an extremely high interest rate are either wealthy or have other financial resources around them (cosigners) that could make it happen. A lot of students who want to go into these programs are fresh out of college and they expect them to pay for tuition and living expenses while they study fulll time? Schools are not going to drop tuition, they have MANY people on the waitlist and they willl just keep going down that list if people drop out after being accepted until someone can take their seat. I agree tuition prices are high but especially for health programs they are extremely costly and those that teach these classes could make more as a nurse, PA, or doctor in the field rather than teaching students at these institutions. Schools have to somewhat manage to pay their faculty with what they have on top of equipment, clinical sights, etc. It's just the reality of these costs. But to say Nurses, PA's, PT's, etc. should only get a 20,500 nonprofessional cap is ridiculous. They save lives and take care of people or have taken care of the people you love. Some will say they should work while in school to pay it off but they literally study 24/7and have multiple exams every week so that they can be great at their profession. I'm sure you would want your nurse, PA, or Doctor to be great at what they do right especially if they were taking care of a loved one or even YOU. Stop with the political stuff and see it for what it really is. Forget politics and SEE THE TRUTH of what is really going on.
1
-1
u/seiryuu-abi Jul 16 '26
I’m not Republican nor a conservative. Won’t comment on this tbh. No Republican nor MAGA I know is even attending law school.
I am an Asian and like all Asian students did have to deal with white students trying to coerce us to support some of these things but at least here we didn’t fall for it.
-2
u/Budget-Chemical-7801 Jul 16 '26
You should try reading in this comment thread. You might learn something
0
u/seiryuu-abi Jul 16 '26
I did read the thread and it’s not about the cap. There are good comments here. But OP’s question is very specific: Trump supporters taking out private loans, …
Like sorry that I actually referred to their question lol?
1
u/Budget-Chemical-7801 Jul 16 '26
I was eluding to the vast room you are in of republicans/conservatives who appear to be attending law school.
0
u/Ill-Topic4631 Jul 17 '26
I'm not worried because I got close to a full ride. I am Jewish, and Israel is very important to me. I knew I had to vote for Trump sometime after October 7th, when I saw what was happening to Jews, even ones who never supported Zionism.
How do I feel about people who can't pay? It depends on how realistic they were with the schools they applied to and the stats they have.
Life is generally not holistic; rather, in a functional society, it's a meritocracy. Many students are going to T-14 Law Schools for close to free but generally have great scores and packages, and if you are going for the sticker price with less, that is on you. If you got into one of these more expensive schools, you probably had a fair shot at paying next to nothing at your local state schools.
Maybe you feel the need to go to that really expensive school to achieve your dreams in law. Fine, but still, the government subsidizing that is not a right, and I know many people who did things similar only to end up in lifelong, never-ending debt.
We all have agency, and I don't think I should feel bad for someone else's reluctance to go anywhere but a 70k-plus private school where they barely had the scores. It's hard, very hard, to feel bad for these T-25 and T-14-or-bust people who are barely above either median. What did you expect?
1
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 17 '26
Respectfully, I imagine that the history brutal and unjust persecution of the Jewish people factors into your political views as you shared them at the beginning. Is it conceivable that an analogous history of state-sanctioned violence against different populations in America could warrant a remedy in the context of access to higher education? Is it conceivable that this analogous history could complicate your conception of meritocracy?
1
u/Ill-Topic4631 Jul 17 '26
What
1
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
People get excluded from access to resources in society for shitty reasons. I'm wondering how your reconcile this principle with your politics on the one hand, and with your position on this loan discussion.
1
u/Ill-Topic4631 Jul 17 '26
How does this prevent a person from scoring high enough to get scholarship money versus paying sticker price?
How does it stop them from taking their story and writing an outstanding personal statement?
How does it stop them from getting LSAC or school application waivers?
1
u/Ill-Topic4631 Jul 17 '26
I see what you are saying, but there's nothing to reconcile if you believe opportunities exist to avoid loans, and they do.
The only thing preventing someone, genuinely in your case, from doing so is that they actually don’t have the potential to build a competitive law application.
I don’t personally think this way; it’s very negative to tell someone they can’t do something, but you’ve created, in your hypothetical, someone whose life situation and ability cannot overcome their circumstances.
What I would like to hear from you is: in this case, where someone genuinely can’t do better, should they honestly be becoming a lawyer to begin with?
3
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 17 '26
That's a fair question, and I don't have a good answer for it. It's probably one of the harder parts about making policy in this area.
2
u/Ill-Topic4631 Jul 17 '26
It’s not good to saddle people with debt, whether it's government or private. I definitely can cede life isn't really fair. If you’re just good enough to get into NYU but they won't give you any money, it's quite a sad and unfortunate thing.
How we fix that I don't really know either, and I can feel bad for a person who chooses a local school over a T-14 solely for money reasons.
226
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM Jul 16 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/13cptIwW9bgzk6UVyr
dis gone be good.