A. Nony Mouse wrote:Albanach - I think that's entirely consistent with what Nebby said initially - that the definition is broad and *statutory.* Of course Congress can change that if they want. I think the whole point originally was that the courts/DOE couldn't reduce the protections. No one has said that Congress couldn't decide to axe it. (So short version: the ABA lawsuit isn't a big deal for the vast majority of people relying on PSLF, but Congress fucking with it is.)
Earlskies, I guess this is a little late now, but I was going to say that for people looking at the T14 and wanting PI, looking at schools' LRAPs is probably much more important than PSLF per se, since there are LRAP programs that don't have anything to do with PSLF/schools that commit to supporting LRAP if PSLF is abolished. (I say T14 because I think not many other schools have LRAPs you could rely on, frankly, so people in other circumstances need to weigh the risks of PSLF more carefully.)
Also it sounds to me like you're heading in the non-biglaw/pure dedication direction in which biglaw isn't necessarily that helpful, but someone like Nebby will be better qualified to speak to that.
(LTM, I agree that often people who head in this direction have a lot of financial support, but don't blame the messengers for the way hiring works. I'm in fed gov so there are plenty of people with biglaw backgrounds but I've been in a number of contexts where "I did biglaw for the money" isn't going to go over well. That's just reality. Also, finally, saying "just do biglaw to pay it off" also reflects a T14/"I got biglaw privilege" - it's not a route available to everyone.)
Also Nony I feel even a top student with a resume that shows only dedicated PI work will have a hard time getting a biglaw job. It's not impossible but it's a huge red flag to interviewers.