ILNews

Federal loan repayment program set for expansion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Obama administration’s move to expand its student loan repayment assistance program – an initiative which may help some lawyers struggling with debt – has put another spotlight on the debate over the rising cost of law school tuition.

President Barack Obama signed an executive order June 9 that would expand the Pay As You Earn program to 5 million more borrowers. This program caps federal student loan payments at 10 percent of the borrower’s income and forgives any amount left unpaid after 20 years.

Currently, PAYE is available only to those who graduated in 2010 and later. The president is proposing the initiative be offered to those who borrowed before October 2007 or ceased borrowing by October 2011.

However, as some point out, the executive order does little to address the problem of ballooning college costs.

While Christopher Chapman, executive director of Access Group Inc., praised the expansion of PAYE, he said many factors contribute to the problem of student loan debt. Part of the solution will have to come from schools making changes to their cost structure.

“No business can consistently increase the price of a product beyond the income of the customer without a negative impact,” Chapman said, adding schools have been taking “simple steps” to curb costs and provide more value to students.

Access Group Inc., a nonprofit comprised of 192 American Bar Association-approved law schools, educates and advises student borrowers who are seeking a professional degree.

Austen Parrish, dean of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, noted tuition is a complicated issue. Often, he said, the sticker price is not the true cost law students pay because many receive financial assistance from the school.

He estimated that at IU Maurer, more than 90 percent of the students have been awarded reduced tuition rates with the average amount of reduction being between $22,000 and $25,000 annually.

In addition, providing a “rich intellectual environment” is not a cheap endeavor, Parrish continued. To be among the top ranked, law schools must offer students practical experience through clinics and externships with quality faculty and practitioners.

“It’s unclear that you can provide a high-quality law school education at a bargain basement price,” Parrish said. “I think the brightest students want to go to a place that provides a full range” of experiences.

The PAYE expansion will not happen immediately. The president has charged the Department of Education with developing the regulations and having the program available to more borrowers by the end of 2015.

Marvin Smith, director of student financial services at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, said questions surrounding how the expansion will be implemented make it difficult to determine how beneficial the program will be to students on the IUPUI campus, including those enrolled at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

One very worrisome issue for law school graduates is the president’s apparent contradictory moves. On the one hand, he wants to increase PAYE while, on the other hand, his FY 2015 budget request would lower loan forgiveness amounts of borrowers who are in professional and graduate schools.

The White House is proposing to lower the amount of a graduate student’s debt that can be wiped away under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, according to an article written by José Espada, director of medical student financial aid at the IU School of Medicine. Under Obama’s budget, loan forgiveness would be capped at $57,500.

Chapman sees the expansion of PAYE as a positive move since it will make more student borrowers eligible for repayment assistance. PAYE and other similar loan repayment programs are good tools for law students and others with high debt and low salaries, he said.

However, Smith and Chapman said borrowers could actually end up owing more if they participate in the PAYE program. While the monthly payment will be lowered, the interest rate will not decrease so the balance on the loan could grow. Chapman also noted that the amount erased is counted as taxable income in the year it is forgiven, requiring borrowers to declare more in income for that year.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT