Top Law Schools

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Not if the government is willing to forgive them for you.

So much could happen that makes it so you don't make it ten whole years repaying... what if you want to switch jobs? There are so many potential reasons why one wouldn't want to stay in a PSLF qualifying job or couldn't and end up stuck with the debt and no way to pay it off. Shouldn't you only take out the loans if you think you can pay back? Even if PSLF is a backup option.

pyramidenergy888 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Not if the government is willing to forgive them for you.

So much could happen that makes it so you don't make it ten whole years repaying... what if you want to switch jobs? There are so many potential reasons why one wouldn't want to stay in a PSLF qualifying job or couldn't and end up stuck with the debt and no way to pay it off. Shouldn't you only take out the loans if you think you can pay back? Even if PSLF is a backup option.

There are lots of reasons why someone might not want to rely on PSLF. I'm really only commenting on the word "weird." I get why you wouldn't rely on PSLF, but that doesn't make it weird for someone else to do so. (Frankly at this point if PSLF doesn't pan out for me I'm riding the REPAYE forgiveness train.)

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

pyramidenergy888 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Not if the government is willing to forgive them for you.

So much could happen that makes it so you don't make it ten whole years repaying... what if you want to switch jobs? There are so many potential reasons why one wouldn't want to stay in a PSLF qualifying job or couldn't and end up stuck with the debt and no way to pay it off. Shouldn't you only take out the loans if you think you can pay back? Even if PSLF is a backup option.

There are lots of reasons why someone might not want to rely on PSLF. I'm really only commenting on the word "weird." I get why you wouldn't rely on PSLF, but that doesn't make it weird for someone else to do so. (Frankly at this point if PSLF doesn't pan out for me I'm riding the REPAYE forgiveness train.)

I guess I meant to convey that it doesn't seem to make financial sense... not "weird".

Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

Earlskies wrote:Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried. There's a 0% chance the education budget passes in its current form

ball is life wrote:

Earlskies wrote:Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried. There's a 0% chance the education budget passes in its current form

This is likely true. But if you're currently in school or starting this fall, this should ease your concerns a bit more. This article from Slate highlights some text from Trump's proposed budget:
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... m_for.html)

"All student loan proposals apply to loans originated on or after July 1, 2018, except those provided to borrowers to finish their current course of study."

Still important to keep an eye on it. But it looks like as currently written, those of us in school now or starting this year will fall can still get PSLF as it exists today.

half moon wrote:

ball is life wrote:

Earlskies wrote:Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried. There's a 0% chance the education budget passes in its current form

This is likely true. But if you're currently in school or starting this fall, this should ease your concerns a bit more. This article from Slate highlights some text from Trump's proposed budget:
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... m_for.html)

"All student loan proposals apply to loans originated on or after July 1, 2018, except those provided to borrowers to finish their current course of study."

Still important to keep an eye on it. But it looks like as currently written, those of us in school now or starting this year will fall can still get PSLF as it exists today.

If I am understanding you correctly, you mean those of us starting this fall would not be affected because our loans would originate before that date... and subsequent loans would be provided to finish a course of study that was started prior to July 2018?

beenoparte125 wrote:

half moon wrote:

ball is life wrote:

Earlskies wrote:Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried. There's a 0% chance the education budget passes in its current form

This is likely true. But if you're currently in school or starting this fall, this should ease your concerns a bit more. This article from Slate highlights some text from Trump's proposed budget:
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... m_for.html)

"All student loan proposals apply to loans originated on or after July 1, 2018, except those provided to borrowers to finish their current course of study."

Still important to keep an eye on it. But it looks like as currently written, those of us in school now or starting this year will fall can still get PSLF as it exists today.

If I am understanding you correctly, you mean those of us starting this fall would not be affected because our loans would originate before that date... and subsequent loans would be provided to finish a course of study that was started prior to July 2018?

That's my understanding of it at least, that all loans taken out for programs beginning before July 1, 2018 would be eligible for PSLF. So for those of us like me who are starting this fall, the loans we take out for 2L and 3L would still be eligible.

The two important things though will be what Congress does and what if anything the Department of Education can do through regulation. As ball is life mentioned above, they're unlikely to pass this budget as written. I have a hard time imagining Congress passing a budget more stingy on student loans than the White House's version, but it'll be a while before we know for sure. On the regulation side, I'm not sure how much leeway the Department has. They may be able to do something like write a narrower definition of the type of jobs that qualify for PSLF. Again, just something to watch.

half moon wrote:

beenoparte125 wrote:

half moon wrote:

ball is life wrote:

Earlskies wrote:Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried. There's a 0% chance the education budget passes in its current form

This is likely true. But if you're currently in school or starting this fall, this should ease your concerns a bit more. This article from Slate highlights some text from Trump's proposed budget:
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... m_for.html)

"All student loan proposals apply to loans originated on or after July 1, 2018, except those provided to borrowers to finish their current course of study."

Still important to keep an eye on it. But it looks like as currently written, those of us in school now or starting this year will fall can still get PSLF as it exists today.

If I am understanding you correctly, you mean those of us starting this fall would not be affected because our loans would originate before that date... and subsequent loans would be provided to finish a course of study that was started prior to July 2018?

That's my understanding of it at least, that all loans taken out for programs beginning before July 1, 2018 would be eligible for PSLF. So for those of us like me who are starting this fall, the loans we take out for 2L and 3L would still be eligible.

The two important things though will be what Congress does and what if anything the Department of Education can do through regulation. As ball is life mentioned above, they're unlikely to pass this budget as written. I have a hard time imagining Congress passing a budget more stingy on student loans than the White House's version, but it'll be a while before we know for sure. On the regulation side, I'm not sure how much leeway the Department has. They may be able to do something like write a narrower definition of the type of jobs that qualify for PSLF. Again, just something to watch.

OK. So I won't bail on law school just yet.

half moon wrote:

beenoparte125 wrote:

half moon wrote:

ball is life wrote:

Earlskies wrote:Would anybody be willing to decipher exactly what the new budget proposal means for students entering law school this fall and/or students with outstanding graduate debt (from a previous degree)?

In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried. There's a 0% chance the education budget passes in its current form

This is likely true. But if you're currently in school or starting this fall, this should ease your concerns a bit more. This article from Slate highlights some text from Trump's proposed budget:
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... m_for.html)

"All student loan proposals apply to loans originated on or after July 1, 2018, except those provided to borrowers to finish their current course of study."

Still important to keep an eye on it. But it looks like as currently written, those of us in school now or starting this year will fall can still get PSLF as it exists today.

If I am understanding you correctly, you mean those of us starting this fall would not be affected because our loans would originate before that date... and subsequent loans would be provided to finish a course of study that was started prior to July 2018?

That's my understanding of it at least, that all loans taken out for programs beginning before July 1, 2018 would be eligible for PSLF. So for those of us like me who are starting this fall, the loans we take out for 2L and 3L would still be eligible.

The two important things though will be what Congress does and what if anything the Department of Education can do through regulation. As ball is life mentioned above, they're unlikely to pass this budget as written. I have a hard time imagining Congress passing a budget more stingy on student loans than the White House's version, but it'll be a while before we know for sure. On the regulation side, I'm not sure how much leeway the Department has. They may be able to do something like write a narrower definition of the type of jobs that qualify for PSLF. Again, just something to watch.

The PSLF definition of qualifying employment is statutory and very broad. Not much they could do to limit it.

Could someone explain to me about qualifying loans for PSLF and/or consolidating (this is assuming the loans I take out for this year still count in the program as outlined above)- They say PSLF only covers direct loans so federal stafford loans cannot be forgiven? And then they say that if you consolidated your loans then it might be covered? I have never taken out loans before so this is like gibberish to me I am just trying to figure out what is covered. Did everyone on the PSLF track only take out direct loans at the higher interest rate rather than utilizing the $20,500 you can get a year at 5.3%??

jlc058 wrote:Could someone explain to me about qualifying loans for PSLF and/or consolidating (this is assuming the loans I take out for this year still count in the program as outlined above)- They say PSLF only covers direct loans so federal stafford loans cannot be forgiven? And then they say that if you consolidated your loans then it might be covered? I have never taken out loans before so this is like gibberish to me I am just trying to figure out what is covered. Did everyone on the PSLF track only take out direct loans at the higher interest rate rather than utilizing the $20,500 you can get a year at 5.3%??

Stafford loans are federal direct loans. Not sure where the confusion is coming in, but any federal loans you could take out for law school are covered (Stafford and Grad PLUS).

cavalier1138 wrote:

jlc058 wrote:Could someone explain to me about qualifying loans for PSLF and/or consolidating (this is assuming the loans I take out for this year still count in the program as outlined above)- They say PSLF only covers direct loans so federal stafford loans cannot be forgiven? And then they say that if you consolidated your loans then it might be covered? I have never taken out loans before so this is like gibberish to me I am just trying to figure out what is covered. Did everyone on the PSLF track only take out direct loans at the higher interest rate rather than utilizing the $20,500 you can get a year at 5.3%??

Stafford loans are federal direct loans. Not sure where the confusion is coming in, but any federal loans you could take out for law school are covered (Stafford and Grad PLUS).

I just had to take the entrance exam to be able to qualify and they were outlining that only direct loans were eligible and then basically listed Direct grad PLUS loans which made it seem like that was your only option, which was news to me because I had previously thought what you were stating-but what your saying makes more sense and could totally be that their program is just confusing and not very straightforward because the rest of it was

Nebby wrote: The PSLF definition of qualifying employment is statutory and very broad. Not much they could do to limit it.

I think the American Bar Association would disagree, giving they are currently suing over just such a limitation.

Still for those in government or 501(c)(3) work, you are probably correct.

I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

albanach wrote:

Nebby wrote: The PSLF definition of qualifying employment is statutory and very broad. Not much they could do to limit it.

I think the American Bar Association would disagree, giving they are currently suing over just such a limitation.

Still for those in government or 501(c)(3) work, you are probably correct.

Exceptions are not the rule

jlc058 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

jlc058 wrote:Could someone explain to me about qualifying loans for PSLF and/or consolidating (this is assuming the loans I take out for this year still count in the program as outlined above)- They say PSLF only covers direct loans so federal stafford loans cannot be forgiven? And then they say that if you consolidated your loans then it might be covered? I have never taken out loans before so this is like gibberish to me I am just trying to figure out what is covered. Did everyone on the PSLF track only take out direct loans at the higher interest rate rather than utilizing the $20,500 you can get a year at 5.3%??

Stafford loans are federal direct loans. Not sure where the confusion is coming in, but any federal loans you could take out for law school are covered (Stafford and Grad PLUS).

I just had to take the entrance exam to be able to qualify and they were outlining that only direct loans were eligible and then basically listed Direct grad PLUS loans which made it seem like that was your only option, which was news to me because I had previously thought what you were stating-but what your saying makes more sense and could totally be that their program is just confusing and not very straightforward because the rest of it was

Perhaps it was not as clear as it should be. The federal Direct Loan Program encompasses all Stafford loans, Grad PLUS loans, Parent PLUS loans, and a couple of other smaller loans like Perkins.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

I don't mean to be rude but no one cares about your own personal proclivities and I don't know what in the world gave you the idea that we do.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

Because not everyone wants to do that? Why is that hard to understand? Top law schools have had their own loan repayment programs for public service long before PSLF came into existence.
Getting a biglaw job with a resume filled with public interest is not simple.
It's also not so easy to just go from biglaw into the type of not for profit work that people are doing now.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

If you're taking on debt to finance law school, there are financial risks, regardless of whether you go the public interest or the firm route. It's common for students to take out six-figure loans to finance law school with the intention of going to a large firm—but plenty of those people will strike out, and plenty more leave their firm (voluntarily or otherwise) before they've paid down their debt. Pretending there's no risk in that decision is silly.

Npret wrote:

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

Because not everyone wants to do that? Why is that hard to understand? Top law schools have had their own loan repayment programs for public service long before PSLF came into existence.
Getting a biglaw job with a resume filled with public interest is not simple.
It's also not so easy to just go from biglaw into the type of not for profit work that people are doing now.

I understand that. In fact, a lot of people doing biglaw don't wanna do biglaw. They're only doing it to pay off loans and then move on to something else. My point wasn't that "biglaw is awesome, you should do it." My point was that 100k+ of loans that'll, I think, substantially grow over 10 years while only minimum payments are paid is a serious debt to have. And to take a risk that after 10 years you weren't in the right job for two years, or you didn't pay the right amount at the right time for these x number of months, or the program has been changed, etc, so you don't qualify for loan forgiveness is a serious decision to make that'll leave whoever makes it at an uncomfortably vulnerable position, especially if you have a family or other obligations on your table. What if he changes his mind 5 years in and doesn't want to do what is deemed a covered type of employment? What if he wants to get out of law for good? What if [enter life event like medical emergency or kids needing school money] happens and his public interest gigs aren't cutting it? Or he loses his public interest job and has to look for another qualifying one for months and those months then extend the 10 year period? All of this stuff has to be taken into considration. And on the whole, given the political climate, I think it would be better to at least consider biglaw for a year or two as an option.

With respect to landing a biglaw job, it's doable even with a pub interest background. And I'm sure "I had loans and a family to think of" is a good enough reason for a public interest interviewer when goin from biglaw to pub interest.

Nebby wrote:

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

I don't mean to be rude but no one cares about your own personal proclivities and I don't know what in the world gave you the idea that we do.

This was literally OP's question, whether s/he should rely on the loan forgiveness program, why or why not...

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:

Npret wrote:

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:I don't mean to be rude but why would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're hoping on some event 10 years down the road while in the mean time you're digging yourself in a bigger hole every day as interest accrues? In 10 years you'll likely be in your mid 30s to 40. You'll likely have kids and a family established and will need money for that. A lot of it. There's no way I'd take a chance that 10 years from now someone says, "Actually, we decided to get rid of that program and you gotta pay for everything." I don't care if it's just 1%, I'm not taking it. Just having those loans over me would stress me out for 10 years. Plus there are very specific rules on which payments count. If you pay above the minimum required and pay ahead, for example, the months where you don't need to pay anything since you're ahead won't count even if you make payments that month (my understanding of it but check me if I'm wrong). And if you keep paying ahead you could pay for years and not have any of it count cause you didn't read the fine print. The same goes for all the other requirements about what job qualifies, how long you gotta work there, etc. This whole thing seems like an insurance policy for an inevitable event and request for coverage, where after 10 years (or more if you haven't paid consistently) you gotta hope the "insurance company" comes through and doesn't unilaterally abolish the policy (which I'm not sure how that would even be legal) or finds some small nit picky thing to deny coverage. No thanks. Go big law for two years, pay it off asap. Then do what you want.

Because not everyone wants to do that? Why is that hard to understand? Top law schools have had their own loan repayment programs for public service long before PSLF came into existence.
Getting a biglaw job with a resume filled with public interest is not simple.
It's also not so easy to just go from biglaw into the type of not for profit work that people are doing now.

I understand that. In fact, a lot of people doing biglaw don't wanna do biglaw. They're only doing it to pay off loans and then move on to something else. My point wasn't that "biglaw is awesome, you should do it." My point was that 100k+ of loans that'll, I think, substantially grow over 10 years while only minimum payments are paid is a serious debt to have. And to take a risk that after 10 years you weren't in the right job for two years, or you didn't pay the right amount at the right time for these x number of months, or the program has been changed, etc, so you don't qualify for loan forgiveness is a serious decision to make that'll leave whoever makes it at an uncomfortably vulnerable position, especially if you have a family or other obligations on your table. What if he changes his mind 5 years in and doesn't want to do what is deemed a covered type of employment? What if he wants to get out of law for good? What if [enter life event like medical emergency or kids needing school money] happens and his public interest gigs aren't cutting it? Or he loses his public interest job and has to look for another qualifying one for months and those months then extend the 10 year period? All of this stuff has to be taken into considration. And on the whole, given the political climate, I think it would be better to at least consider biglaw for a year or two as an option.

With respect to landing a biglaw job, it's doable even with a pub interest background. And I'm sure "I had loans and a family to think of" is a good enough reason for a public interest interviewer when goin from biglaw to pub interest.

0Ls really shouldn't be giving advice or expressing an opinion in this thread

Re: paying ahead - I don't think that's right at all about paying ahead. But then, there's no point at all in paying ahead if you're banking on forgiveness because it is literally throwing your money away. There's no point in trying to hedge your bets and pay ahead because you want the max forgiven (and you wouldn't need to pay ahead because if there's a month you can't pay because your income drops, there's no payment due).

Also there's no 10 year time limit. You just need 120 qualifying payments, which can be spread out over more than 10 years if a job suddenly doesn't count. That probably isn't going to change your mind (which is fine) but you're not describing the situation quite accurately.

In any case, if forgiveness goes away I'm just PAYE-ing till the tax bomb hits, and if they get rid of that I'll be paying till whenever. Biglaw's not going to hire me and I don't want to work for them. It's great that you don't want to do this but it sounds kind of like you're arguing it's stupid for anyone to do it, which is not your choice to make.

(Nebby, pretty sure he's not a 0L since he's posted about taking the bar.)

A. Nony Mouse wrote:(Nebby, pretty sure he's not a 0L since he's posted about taking the bar.)

This does not reflect well on him, then.

People who have no experience in public interest or public service employment should probably stick to not giving advice on the hiring practices of public interest or public service employers.