I sent this proposal to Senator Durbin's office several years ago during the start of the credit crisis.... should I include it as an addendum to my PS as an indicator of the type of work/reforms I'll later be a part of? As an aside... I have over 7+ years mortgage lending experience but was always uniquely driven towards reform/regulation instead of exploiting the relatively unregulated credit markets of the last 10 years or so.... I'm very public interest-centric.

Anyways, here it is...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As clearly evidenced by the magnitude and far-reaching external effects into other markets brought upon by the recent mortgage industry crisis, establishing a reliable system that promotes as well as supports safe, responsible mortgage lending is paramount to all American people and our economy.


Home ownership and the ability to securely maintain the financing on one’s home is an instrumental facet of not only individual families and their communities, but national development as well.


This proposal to establish a safe, sustainable system of home-ownership incorporates both private lending institutions as well as our government and begins during college.


Up until now, most students attend college to educate themselves in order to prepare for their professional careers afterwards without really considering their future housing situation until after graduation. As the costs of education continue to increase, most students graduate college with either a fair amount of student loan debt or not much in savings for a down payment on a first home or condominium. Their first (and perhaps only) housing choice is generally an apartment rental but what if there was a system in place that promoted and supported home ownership immediately after graduation? This would be in the best interest of all American people as well as our economy.


This proposal is as follows:


Establish a fund – similar to a 401k at each accredited university which allows a student or his family to contribute a portion of tuition towards a savings account which will be matched at a certain % relative to the average GPA of the student during his 4 years, or through graduate school, etc.
For example – if the student’s average GPA is 3.0 – the fund will match the student’s contribution at 35%. If the student’s ave. GPA is 3.5, it will match it 40% and if a student maintains 3.75+ it would match it 50%. Limits or minimums can of course be determined.
The university can manage and invest the pool of these funds as there will only be an est .25% dispersment per year coupled with a new freshman class that will enroll in this program. This will offset the contributions which the university will make to match each student’s deposits into the fund.
Establish some sort of benefit, subsidization or tax credit for builders to develop (for example) green, affordable, safe condominium communities in major cities where most college students will seek employment upon graduation. Allow graduates to have first right to purchase these properties.
Establish a system (perhaps incorporating special fannie/Freddie guidelines) whereby these students can use their funds for the down payment and qualify for low rate, safe, mortgage financing on these properties.


The end result will be the future of our economy – our graduates – being educated, poised and smartly invested almost immediately after graduation through real estate which is the pillar of America’s future families and communities. Also, due to the down payment, each graduate will immediately have equity in their first property, which is also a pivotal consideration for the safety and performance of these mortgage loans.


Ultimately – the winners in this system are:


The Graduates will obviously benefit from immediate home ownership and equity.
The Economy (this will promote safer lending, more community investment where these properties/communities are built, etc)
Banks/lending institutions (these will be extremely safe loans due to the equity already built into them at time of purchase)
Universities (this will promote better performance and motivation for certain grades as well as a monetary benefit from the management and investment of these funds.
Companies will benefit from more educated, quality graduates who have had an added interest in performing well in school on top of them being immediately invested in the city or community they have decided to move to due to their home ownership.
America – our nation will benefit due to our future graduates learning, preparing and immediately applying safe investment principles through their first property purchase by having a substantial down payment and instant equity.



This is a broad stroke and some tweaking will obviously be needed to coordinate all variables in this model but it is still, nevertheless, an obvious benefit to all parties mentioned and our nation as a whole.


Some of the tweaking will need to be in regards to:


The setting up of each university’s fund and it’s management, investment, etc.
How the government will handle the subsidization, credit or other benefit to the builders which will develop these condo or home developments.
The legal considerations, contracts, etc, pertaining to the (for example) association bylaws of a condo development specifically developed for new graduates.
All other legal considerations pertaining to the fund, tax liabilities at each stage, possible dividends, splits towards the university or back to the student, etc, etc.
Fannie May/Freddie Mac cooperation.

no

Why not? Too "out of the box" etc?

Irrelevant.

Don't send.

I think it is just more for them to read, when they really cannot spare the time. Remember the 5 minute rule. Also, note the brevity request for any addendums.

It is also a really terrible proposal. Government subsidized housing for people with no equity, large unsecured debt and no employment history. Genius.

I say bad idea because it's not an accomplishment of any kind . . . anyone can write a proposal/mail it to their senator's office . . . granted yours is fairly well thought out and researched. Can you imagine if everyone was sending in policy proposals with their applications how long it would take to read them. In my opinion, you should just work it into your PS in a heartfelt way how that type of law is so important to you, and more importantly, why it's so important to you.

I have serious doubts about the feasibility of such a system from an economic point of view and while some might view it more favorably, nobody's going to be thinking, "zOMG, this guy's a genius" after reading it. Honestly, though, I would be surprised if adcomms even read it, it really doesn't serve a purpose as far as law school applications go. If anything, it has the potential to harm and no potential to help.

Here's why I think it's relevant.... it involves one of the root causes leading to the greatest financial crisis since the great depression and in many ways our system of law is responsible for regulating these industries/markets. There are obviously brilliant lawyers out there... where were they 8-10 years ago when the absurdly unregulated credit markets were clearly pointing to the formation of a bubble that had the potential to cripple our entire financial system - which it almost did.

I think (especially given my experience and perspective) I can bring a lot to the table insofar as a unique "voice" for any top law school section.

But... I don't think it's appropriate as a PS on it's own. So no addendum is the majority vote? I might still go with it...

It is "out-of-the-box", but it's kind of lame. Why would the adcoms care if you wrote a senator a letter, that it looks like was written in 2008, maybe start of 2009.

Majority vote is probably an understatement. I would be surprised if you can find one person on here who thinks it's a good idea to send this along.

Uh, Desert Fox, real estate IS secured debt.... it's secured by the real estate. WTF do you consider "unsecured?" Also... all the incentives of this system (as well as built in equity) point towards a more sustainable real estate market. New college grads would benefit from this... who's side are you on?

This is the right idea . . . you're just going about in the wrong way. If you look at all the books on law school admissions, all the adcomms tell stories about erroneous materials included with the application . . . following the instructions is important, only send what they ask for, and very brief addendums to address extreme circumstances that they might not otherwise be aware of. Maybe I could see an abstract of an award winning honors thesis or something, but an entire policy proposal you just cooked up on your own? Why would they care, even if it was a good idea? They don't need to know you already have that knowledge base, they need to know why law school is for you.

Then talk about your perspective, don't forward them a letter you wrote to someone else. It provides no insight into who you are and as someone else said, writing a letter isn't an accomplishment. Applications are about brevity. There is a page limit to everything, even addenda (usually a page). Don't include extraneous information, it will be annoying and you'll look like a tool.

BTW, Durbin did respond... but I suspect it was one of his staff who gave me a very generalized interpretation of the proposal as well as interest. Needless to say, the economy got worse and this type of stuff wasn't top priority for any politician at the time.

In any case... I just thought it would set me apart a bit. I could be wrong and it might be a risk so I might use it for just a few schools.... most likely the ones in DC.

The debt from school that you used as an argument for why this program is need. Sorry if I was unclear.

New college grads shouldn't be buying a house without being able to save up and establish a halfway decent history of financial responsibility.

Giving out credit to people who shouldn't have it, is the cause of the real estate crash. Your solution is to double down on irresponsible credit.

ITT: We make up our minds beforehand

After re-reading it, it definitely seems like a proposal for an overleveraged clusterfuck. Send it if you really want to, OP, but you've been warned by everybody on here.

Wait, is communicating my opinion now a qualification for law school? If so, then I really should have applied to HYS. I have all sorts of opinions and I have no problem spamming them to the inbox of every elected dogcatcher in the land.

If your proposal were the subject of some intensive research at a name-brand think tank (and you participated substantively), or if a member of Congress explicitly used it in a bill that did something more than collect dust in the hopper, then it might be an achievement.

As it is, I'd put this under the "don't send us your thesis" rule.