The Nightingale case: Elderly student-loan debtors need a swifter process for bankruptcy relief

Nightingale v. North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, decided last month. demonstrates how difficult it is for distressed student-loan debtors to obtain bankruptcy relief--even if they are elderly and in poor health.

The Nightingale case: A 67-year-old retired teacher with chronic health problems seeks to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy

Alice Nightingale took out about $48,000 in student loans when she was in her late 50s to obtain a master's degree that would allow her to obtain a job as a public school teacher. Due to serious health issues, she went on disability leave in 2012 and received monthly disability benefits until she retired in  June  of 2014. After retiring, she lived on an income of $1,645 a month, consisting of Social Security income and state retirement benefits.

In June 2013, Nightingale filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge. She then filed an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy court to discharge her student loans.  North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority (NCSEAA), Nightingale's student-loan creditor, filed for summary judgment in 2014, arguing she was eligible for a long-term income-based repayment plan that would obligate her to pay zero on her student loans. Since paying nothing would not be an undue hardship on her, NCSEAA maintained, Nightingale was not entitled to a bankruptcy discharge.

Fortunately for Nightingale, Judge Benjamin A. Kahn, a North Carolina bankruptcy judge, denied NCSEAA's motion, pointing out that the creditor's reasoning would mean that the people who are most worthy of bankruptcy relief could never get it. Furthermore, the judge pointed out,"Participation in such a 'repayment' program in which [Nightingale's]  monthly payment is zero is not repayment at all; rather, the loan continues to accrue interest on the principal without any repayment. At the end of the twenty-five year period, [Nightingale's] loans may be forgiven, but that amount, on which interest has been accruing, may become taxable as income."

The case then went to trial, and Judge Kahn entered his decision on January 16, 2016. The judge ruled that Nightingale met two prongs of the three-pronged Brunner test. First, she could not pay back her loans and maintain a minimal standard of living. Indeed, Judge Kahn ruled, "the unrebutted evidence demonstrated that [Nightingale] is currently incapable of making any material payment on the debts while maintaining a minimal standard of living."

Brunner's second prong required Nightingale to show that she had made good faith efforts to pay back her loan.  Judge Kahn ruled that she met this prong as well. Nightingale had paid about $11,000 on he loans and was currently making income-based payments of $133 a month.

To obtain a bankruptcy discharge of her student loan, Nightingale was also required to pass the third-prong of the Brunner test by showing that exceptional circumstances prevented her from paying back her student loans in the future. In other words, she was obligated to show a "certainty of hopelessness" regarding her long-term financial circumstances.

Judge Kahn admitted that Nightingale's testimony supported a finding of exceptional circumstances. "Nightingale is elderly, has no job prospect in the field for which she was educated, lives on a meager budget, relies upon friends and family to provide shelter, and testified that she has additional medical disabilities that prevent her from returning to gainful employment." In fact, NCSEAA agreed that Nightingale's current situation was dire "and that she is barely able to remain healthy and in affordable housing, much less hold down a job."

But Judge Kahn ruled that Nightingale's own testimony about her chronic health problems was insufficient to show long-term financial distress without corroborating evidence. The judge indicated that corroborating evidence in the form of a letter from Nightingale's doctor about her health status would probably be sufficient and gave her 14 days to produce such a letter or other corroborating evidence of her health problems.

What is the significance of the Nightingale decision?

The Nightingale decision is significant for two reasons. First, Judge Benjamin Kahn flatly rejected a student-loan creditor's argument that Nightingale was ineligible for bankruptcy relief because she could enroll in a long-term income-based repayment plan that would require her to pay nothing due to her limited income. Had Judge Kahn adopted NCSEAA's argument, no student-loan debtor would be eligible for bankruptcy relief, at least not in Judge Kahn's court.

Second, the Nightingale decision demonstrates the difficulty distressed student loan debtors have when trying to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. First, Nightingale had to defeat NCSEAA's summary judgment motion, which took months to resolve. Second, she was required to round up corroborating evidence of her chronic health problems.

In many circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for a bankruptcy judge to require a student-loan debtor to provide proof of chronic health issues. As Judge Kahn correctly observed, when health problems are not obvious, corroborating evidence is necessary to avoid the possibility of fabrication and fraud.

But Alice Nightingale is 67 years old! She went on disability leave until she retired in 2014 and now lives on an income of only $1,645 a month. Why was it necessary for her to provide corroborating evidence that chronic health issues prevent her from increasing her income in the future?

I don't mean to be too hard on Judge Kahn. He was obviously sympathetic to Nightingale's situation. After all, he denied NCSEAA's motion for summary judgment, and he gave Nightingale time to provide supporting evidence of her chronic health problems.  I feel sure the judge will ultimately discharge Nightingale's student-loan debt.

Nevertheless, when an elderly person living on a small pension and a Social Security check comes into bankruptcy court to discharge her student loans, I believe she is entitled to a speedy discharge. Unfortunately for Alice Nightingale, her adversary proceeding lasted more than two years. And her case may still not be behind her. If Judge Kahn discharges her student-loan debt, as seems likely, NCSEAA may appeal.

References

Nightingale v. North Carolina State Educ. Assistance Authority, 543 B.R. 538 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2016) (ruling requiring Nightingale to provide corroborating evidence of her chronic health problems).

Nightingale v. North Carolina State Educ. Assistance Authority, 529 B.R. 641 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2015) (ruling on NCSEAA's motion for summary judgment).

In the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Catholics Should Urge the Government to Forgive Student-Loan Debt

According to Old Testament scripture, a jubilee year occurs every fifty years; and in that year, slaves are freed and debts are forgiven. Leviticus 25:8-13. Pope Francis has proclaimed a Jubilee Year of Mercy for the Catholic Church that begins on December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Would not this be a good time for the  U.S. government to forgive  $1.3 trillion in student-loan debt?

Perhaps not all of it. Of the 41 million people who have outstanding student loans, a great many received good value for their college education and can pay back what they borrowed. But 10 million people have either defaulted on their student loans or are delinquent in their payments. Millions more have gotten economic hardship deferments and aren't paying down their loans.

And for some people, their student loan debt is completely out of control. Liz Kelly, for example, featured in a recent New York Times article, is a 48-year old school teacher who owes $410,000 in student-loan debt--most of it accumulated interest. Will she ever pay it back? Not likely.

A 2014 law review article reported that 241,000 people with student-loan debt filed for bankruptcy in 2007, but less than 300 of them even tried to discharge their student loans. Either they figured it would be hopeless to try wipe out their student-loan debt in the bankruptcy courts or they didn't have the money to hire a lawyer to assist them.

And yet, as Paul Campos explained on his blog site and in a recent book,  we have thousands of unemployed or underemployed attorneys, many of whom have crushing student-loan debt themselves. Why doesn't the government, as an act of mercy, encourage these idle lawyers to help people discharge their student loans in bankruptcy?

Mercy, Pope Francis reminds us demands justice. "True mercy, the mercy God gives to us and teaches us, demands justice, it demands that the poor find a way to be poor no longer," Pope Francis explained. Mercy demands that institutions strive to make sure that "no one ever again stands in need of a soup-kitchen, of makeshift lodgings, of a service of legal assistance in order to have his legitimate right recognized to live and to work, to be fully a person."

Our country now has 23 million people who are unable to pay off their student-loan debt.  Indeed, about 150,000 elderly people are having their Social Security checks garnished by the federal government to offset unpaid student loans. For these people there is no Jubilee Year of Mercy--no forgiveness, and little relief even in the bankruptcy courts.

We are now a secular people--a people who pride themselves on having driven religion out of the schools and the public square. But surely we are not a heartless people. Surely our hearts are susceptible to warming by the words of a great man like Pope Francis.

So let us do mercy in the Jubilee Year of Mercy. And if our government is incapable of mercy, let us look for ways we as individuals can render mercy and to work for a system of higher education that does not drive millions of students into the poor house.

Catharine Hill, president of Vassar College, shovels horse manure in the New York Times about rising college costs

Catharine Hill dumped a load of horse manure on the op ed pages of the New York Times today, which is a good place to put it. In an essay expressing opposition to free college tuition, she made three bogus points:

1) College costs have gone up because state governments provide less funding to higher education than they once did.
2) Although the cost of going to college has gotten more expensive, it is still a good investment because college graduates make more on average than people who don't have college degrees.
3) The way to address the rising tide of student-loan indebtedness is better counseling and long-term repayment plans.

Let's look at Hill's three points.

First, declining state support for higher education has little to do with Vassar, which is a private institution. It costs a quarter million dollars to attend Vassar for four years, and that cost can't be explained by declining financial support from state governments.

Second, yes it is true that people who graduate from college earn more money on average than people who don't. But that doesn't justify skyrocketing college costs. Many college graduates attended relatively inexpensive state colleges. For those people, their increased earning potential justified the expense of going to college. But people who get liberal arts degrees from elite private colleges like Vassar often take on unmanageable student-loan debt. Many of them would have been better off going to an institution like Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, than borrowing money to listen to postmodern screeching by Vassar professors.

Finally, Hill's suggestion for handling the student-loan crisis is pure horse manure, and it isn't even fresh.  Hill recommends"better counseling," longer repayment periods and income-based repayment plans as the way to help students manage their crushing student-debt loads. Of course,this is exactly what the Obama administration is saying, along with higher education's professional organizations and sycophantic policy think tanks like the Brookings Institution.

Come on, Catharine. Come clean. Why don't you tell us the real reason you are opposed to free college tuition? You are opposed to it because the feds can't possibly provide free tuition for students to attend overpriced joints like Vassar. And a comprehensive  federal program offering free tuition would mean less money for elite colleges. You would prefer the status quo, whereby the exclusive colleges get the benefit of Pell grants and federal student loans--federal money you cannot operate without.

In fact, you reveal your true motivations in the last few paragraphs of your essay. "Without federal loan programs, many students could attend only schools that their families could afford from their current income or savings."  That's right, Catharine. You want students to attend colleges they can't afford. Otherwise, they might have to enroll at the University of Connecticut or Florida State. The horror! The horror!

Frankly, I would have expected more from Catharine Hill. After all she is an economist. Surely she knows that most of the people who sign up for 25-year repayment plans will never pay off their student-loan balances because their income-based loan payments won't be large enough to cover accruing interest. Surely she understands that making people pay for their college education over a majority of their working lives does not make economic sense.

But Catharine doesn't care. She just wants to keep the federal money rolling in so that places like Vassar, Yale, and Dartmouth can pay the professors and administrators more than they are worth to teach arrogant students who think they are smarter than the faculty and are probably correct.

And once a year, these condescending institutions have a dress-up day when the faculty wear medieval clothing and hand out bits of paper they insist on calling diplomas to the dunderheads who went hopelessly into debt for the privilege of wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the name of some fancy college like Vassar.

Horse manure from Catharine Hill, president of Vassar

References

Catharine Hill. Free Tuition Is Not the Answer. New York Times, November 30, 2015, p. A23. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/free-tuition-is-not-the-answer.html?_r=0

Liz Kelly, a school teacher, owes $410,000 in student loans--most of it accumulated interest. Will she ever pay it back?

Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't ... pays it.

Albert Einstein 

Liz Kelly, a 48-year old school teacher, owes the federal government $410,000 in student loans, which she will never pay back. How did that happen?

The New York Times article chronicled Kelly's story in this Sunday's Business Section, but the Times didn't adequately explain how Kelly got into this jam. My commentary for today is a forensic commentary on Kelly's situation.

Compound interest. As the Times story reported, Kelly didn't borrow $410,000 to finance her studies. She actually borrowed less than $150,000. Two thirds of her total debt is accumulated interest.

Albert Einstein observed that "[c]ompound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it . . . he who doesn't . . . pays it." As Liz Kelly's story illustrates, most people don't understand Einstein's simple observation about compound interest any better than they understand his theory of relativity.

Over the years, Kelly took out student loans to pay for her undergraduate education, graduate studies, child care and living expenses. She also borrowed money to get a law degree, which she did not complete, and a Ph.D. from Texas A & M, which she also did not complete.

Her graduate studies enabled her to postpone making payments on her loans, but she continued borrowing more money; and the interest on her loans continued to accrue. Some of her loans accrued interest at 8. 25 percent--a pretty high interest rate. When her total indebtedness reached $260,000, she consolidated her student loans at 7 percent interest--still pretty high.

Over a period of 25 years, Kelly received a series of forbearances or deferments, and she never made a single payment on her loans. Thus, it is easy to understand how the total amount of her indebtedness tripled over the amount she borrowed.  In fact, as the Times pointed out, the annual cost of interest on her unpaid student loans is now larger than the total amount she borrowed for her undergraduate education!

Back in the old days, when people received interest on their savings, most people understood the principle of compound interest. People knew, for example, that money saved at 7 percent interest doubled in 10 years, and that money saved at 10 percent interest doubled in 7 years.

But no one gets interest on their savings any more, and perhaps that explains why many student-loan borrowers don't understand that their total indebtedness grows every year their loans are in deferment. Certainly Liz Kelly didn't understand this. The Times reported that she was shocked to learn that she owed $410,000.

No cap on student loans.  Although Kelly never made a single payment on her student loans, the federal government continued to loan her money. In fact, in 2011, she borrowed about $7,500 to pursue a Ph.D. in education, even though her total indebtedness at that time was more than a third of a million dollars and she had made no loan payments.

As the Times writer succinctly observed:

A private sector lender approached by a potential borrower with no assets, a modest income, and $350,000 in debt who had never made a payment on that loan in over 20 years would not, presumably, lend that person an addition $7,800. But that is exactly what the federal government did for Ms. Kelly. Legally it could do nothing else.

Obviously, a federal student-loan system that works this way is dysfunctional, irrational, and unsustainable. The feds should have shut off the student-loan spigot long before Kelly borrowed money to get a Ph.D.

The Charade of Income-Based Repayment Plans. If Kelly had accumulated $410,000 in consumer debt or a home mortgage, she could discharge the debt in bankruptcy. But discharging a student loan in bankruptcy is very hard to do. Indeed, Kelly might find it very difficult to meet the so-called "good faith" prong of the three-part Brunner test. After all, she continued taking out student loans over a period of 20 years and never made any loan payments.

Kelly's only reasonable escape from her predicament is to enroll in the federal government's loan forgiveness program, which would allow her to make payments based on a percentage of her income for a period of 10 years so long as she works in an approved public-service job. As a school teacher, she should easily qualify for this program.

But as Kelly herself pointed out, her monthly loan payments under such a plan would not even cover accumulating interest on the $410,000 she owes. At the end of her 10-year repayment program, her total indebtedness would be larger than it is now--easily a half million. That amount would be forgiven, leaving the taxpayers on the hook.

In fact, Kelly's situation is a perfect illustration for the argument that income-based repayment programs are not a solution to the student-loan crisis. Most people who participate in them--about 4 million people--will not pay down the principal on their loans.  Income-based repayment plans are really just a penance for borrowing too much money--say one Our Father and three Hail Marys and go and sin no more.

Conclusion

The Times story on Liz Kelly concluded with the observation that Kelly's story is unusual, but that's not really true. As the Times itself observed in a recent editorial, 10 million people have either defaulted on their loans or are in delinquency. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported in 2013 that 9 million people were not making payments on their student loans because they had obtained a forbearance or deferment. And about 4 million people are in income-based repayment plans.

Thus, at least 23 million people have loans in the repayment phase who are not making standard loan payments. So what should we do?

1) First, the federal government should not loan people more money if they are not making payments on the money they already borrowed. No one did Liz Kelly any favors by loaning her an additional $7,500 when she had already accumulated indebtedness of $350,000 and didn't have a prayer of ever paying it back.

2) There needs to be some cap on the amount of money people can borrow from the federal student-loan program. I'm not prepared to say what the cap should be, but surely it is bad public policy to lend money so that people can accumulate multiple degrees that do not further their financial prospects.

3) We've got to face the fact that income-based repayment plans--favored by the Obama administration, the New York Times, and the Brookings Institution--are not a solution to the student-loan crisis. Surely it is pointless to put Kelly on a ten-year income-based repayment plan that won't even pay the interest on her indebtedness.

As unpalatable as it is for politicians and the higher education community to admit, bankruptcy is the only humane option for people like Liz Kelly.  Did she make some big mistakes in managing her financial affairs? Yes. But the federal government and several universities allowed her to make those mistakes; and the universities received the benefit of Kelly's tuition money.

No--we need to face this plain and simple fact: Kelly will never pay off that $410,000. And putting her in a long-term income-based repayment plan is nothing more than a strategy to avoid facing reality, which is this: the federal student loan program is out of control.

Compound interest: The eighth wonder of the world

References

Kevin Carey. (2015, November 29). Lend With a Smile, Collect With a Fist. New York Times, Sunday Business Section, 1. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/upshot/student-debt-in-america-lend-with-a-smile-collect-with-a-fist.html?_r=0

Editorial, "Why Student Debtors Go Unrescued." New York Times, October 7, 2015, A 26. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/why-student-debtors-go-unrescued.html

Rohit Chopra. A closer look at the trillion. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, August 5, 2013.  Accessible at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/a-closer-look-at-the-trillion/

Suicide and Student Loans: Is There a Link?

Death rates among white, middle-aged Americans have gone up significantly in recent years. According Anne Case and Angus Deaton, two Princeton economists, death rates for people in the 45 to 54 age group began rising in 1999. For middle-aged white people with a high school diploma or less, the mortality rate rose 22 percent between 1999 and 2013.

Why are relatively young white Americans dying at a higher rate than they did 15 years ago? Case and Deaton say most of the rising mortality rate can be attributed to suicide or deaths related to alcohol or drug abuse.People in this age group are experiencing a lot of stress, including economic stress; and they are turning to alcohol and drugs to deal with it. “What we see here is a group that’s in quite a lot of distress,” said Ms. Case in a Wall Street Journal interview.

As Case and Deaton said in their report:

Although the epidemic of pain, suicide, and drug overdoses preceded the financial crisis, ties to economic insecurity are possible. After the productivity slowdown in the early 1970s, and with widening income inequality, many of the baby-boom generation are the first to find, in midlife, that they will not be better off than were their parents. Growth in real median earnings has been slow for this group, especially those with only a high school education. 

As everyone knows, Americans' accumulated student-loan debt has been going up steadily for the past 20 years. Could there be a  link between student-loan debt and rising mortality rates among middle-aged white Americans?

Deaton and Case did not examine student-loan indebtedness in their study, and any attempt to link student loans to rising death rates would be speculative. Moreover, Case and Deaton found that middle-aged people with college degrees had not experienced higher mortality rates.

Nevertheless, suicide rates for the Baby Boomer generation have gone up dramatically in recent years. According to a report by Katherine Hempstead and Julie Phillips, the suicide rate  for people in the 40-64 age group has gone up 40 percent since 2007.

Hempstead and Philips suggest that economic problems may have contributed to the rising suicide rate among Baby Boomers, and that "adverse effects of economic difficulties on psychological well-being may have been greater for those who did not anticipate them; this may well have been the case for those who were educated and wealthier . . . ."

One thing is certain: Our federal government has constructed a student-loan scheme so heartless that it almost seems to have been designed to plunge millions of Americans into long-term clinical depression.  So isn't it reasonable to conclude there is a connection between crushing student loans and rising suicide rates among middle-aged people?

Let's examine some of the evidence pointing to growing stress among student-loan debtors:

• As the New York Times recently pointed out, ten million people are in default on their student loans or delinquent on their loan payments.

• According to a recent report by the Brookings Institution, loan balances for a significant number of student-loan debtors actually went up after they entered the repayment phase  of their loans. Why? Because a lot of people have obtained economic-hardship deferments that exempt them from making loan payments due to dire economic circumstances.  But because they are not paying down accruing interest, their loan balances are getting larger, making them more difficult to pay off.

• The percentage of elderly Americans with unpaid student-loan debt is going up. According to a report from the General Accounting Office, the percentage of people in the 65 through 74 age group with outstanding student loans grew from 1 percent in 2004 to 4 percent in 2010, a four-fold increase   And the amount of student-loan debt owed by elderly people is growing as well.  In fact, the amount of debt held by elderly Americans grew six fold between 2005 and 2013--from $2.8 billion in 2005 to $18.2 billion.

• The federal government is  garnishing more and more Social Security checks to collect on unpaid student loans.   In 2002, only 31,000 people had Social Security benefits garnished because they had defaulted on their student loans. That number ballooned five fold in just 11 years. In 2013, 155,000 Americans saw their Social Security checks reduced due to unpaid student-loans.

Let's consider that last bullet from a more personal perspective. According to a story posed on Market Watch, the U.S. government is garnishing the Social Security checks of Naomia Davis, an 80 year old woman who is suffering from advanced Alzheimer's Disease. Ms. Davis's only income is her $894 Social Security check, and the feds take $134 of it to pay down on an old student loan.

In short, it is reasonable to conclude that crushing student-loan debt contributes to depression and even suicide among Baby Boomers who are struggling to pay off college loans they took out when they were young.  The student loan crisis is not only eroding Americans' sense of economic well being; it may be literally killing them.

References

Jillian Berman. When your Social Security check disappears because of an old student loan. MarketWatch, June 25, 2015.  Accessible at: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-your-social-security-check-disappears-because-of-an-old-student-loan-2015-06-25

Anne  Case and Angus Deaton. Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white
non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century.  Accessible at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112.full.pdf

Editorial. Death Among MiddleAged Whites. New York Times, November 5, 2015.

Editorial. Why Student Debtors Go Unrescued. New York Times, October 7, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/why-student-debtors-go-unrescued.html?_r=0

General Accounting Office. Older Americans: Inability to Repay Student Loans May Affect Financial Security of a Small Percentage of Borrowers. GAO-14-866T. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-866T

Katherine A. Hempstead and Julie A. Phillips. Rising Suicide Among Adults Aged
40–64 Years: The Role of Job and Financial Circumstances.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine 84(5):491-500 (2015). Accessible at: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(14)00662-X/pdf

Jason Iuliano. An Empirical Assessment of Student Loan Discharge and the Undue Hardship Standard. American Bankruptcy Law Journal 86 (2012), 495.

Gina Kolata. Deaths Rates Rising Middle-Aged White Americans, Study Finds. NewYork Times, November 3, 2015. Accessibe at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html

Betsy McKay. The Death Rate Is Rising for Midle-Aged Whites. Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-death-rate-is-rising-for-middle-aged-whites-1446499495

If you have to enroll in a 25-year income-based repayment plan to pay for your college education, you attended the wrong college

In his 2012 book entitled Don't Go To Law School Unless), Paul Campos made a statement that startled me by its intense clarity. "The truth is," Campos wrote, "that people who are likely to end up in [income-based repayment plans] if they go to law school should not go at all" (48). 

And of course Campos is right. But isn't the same observation true about undergraduate education as well? A person who must enter a 25 year income-based repayment plan to pay for a college degree either enrolled in the wrong college or chose the wrong academic major--and probably both.

For example, Ron Lieber of the New York Times wrote a story about five years ago that featured Cortney Munna, who borrowed almost $100,000 to get a degree in women's studies and religious studies at New York University, one of the most expensive universities in the world.. At the time of Lieber's story, Munna was working for a photographer for $22 an hour and enrolled in night school in order to defer her loan payments. 

As Lieber pointed out, going back to college simply to postpone student-loan payments on the degree one already has is not a good long-term option because interest continues to accrue on the debt.

I wonder how Ms. Munna is doing today. I think the chances are very good that she is in a 25-year income-based repayment plan

Campos said in his book that "there's a good argument to be made that law schools [that] promote IBR[income-based repayment plans] are participating in  a fraud on the public." (50) Again, I think Campos is right.

 Most people who enter into 25-year income-based repayment plans won't make payments large enough to cover accruing interest and also pay down the principal on their loans. In other words, most people in IBRs will see their loans negatively amortize. This means the taxpayer will be left holding the bag when the loan-repayment term ends and the unpaid portion of the loan is forgiven.

To return to Ms. Munna's story, shouldn't NYU bear some responsibility for allowing her to borrow so much money for a degree that is not likely to lead to a job that will allow her to pay back the debt?

Of course, universities are not in the habit of admitting that some of their degree programs are overpriced. But maybe it is a habit they should acquire.  How many private universities could look their students in the eye and say their degrees in women's studies, religious studies, sociology, urban studies etc. etc. etc. are worth going $100,00 into debt? Not many.

References

Paul Campos. Don't Go To Law School (Unless). Self-published, 2012.

Ron Lieber. Placing the Blame as Students Are Buried in Debt. New York Times, May28, 2010. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/your-money/student-loans/29money.html

American Law Schools Have Embraced Greed And Have Become Poor Models for the Ethical Practice of Law

Many years ago when I was a practicing lawyer, my senior law partner made an observation I never forgot. Law graduates become the kind of attorney they will always be, he remarked, based on their first law job.

And based on my experience, my law partner's assessment is 100 percent accurate. Young people who graduate from law school and begin working for an ethical law firm are molded into ethical lawyers and remain ethical lawyers all their lives. Fledgling attorneys who join firms with sloppy ethics or an undue focus on making money become ethically sloppy themselves, and the slipshod ethical standards of their first employer shape their entire careers.

But of course attorneys' ethical values are being shaped even before they take their first law jobs. Law students first begin developing their ethical standards while in law school. In their classroom interactions and their examinations, they learn the value of honesty and fair dealing.

And if this is true, then it is important for law students to attend law schools that model the highest ethical standards. For if law students see their law schools make decisions based on greed and self-promotion, it seems likely that the students themselves will adopt similar attitudes about the legal  profession.

And this brings me to an editorial in today's Sunday Times entitled "The Law School Debt Crisis." In 2012, the Times reported, the average law graduate accumulated $140,000 in debt; and yet newly minted attorneys are entering a job market in which 43 percent of them cannot find long-term, full time jobs in the legal field.

Simply put, the market for lawyers is flooded. Many sensible young people have analyzed their job prospects if they go to law school and have decided to choose other professions. In fact, as Steven J. Harper reported in a New Times op ed essay a few months ago, law-school enrollment has slipped from 52,000 in 2010 to 38,000 last year.

But the drop in law-school enrollments has not kept pace with the slump in demand for lawyers. Most law schools depend on tuition money for the vast majority of their income; they simply must attract students to maintain their revenue streams. Consequently, they have lowered admissions standards to keep heir enrollments up. In 2014, the Times pointed out, test scores on the common portion of the LSAT were the lowest they have been in 25 years.

In sum, this is the state of the legal field. Law schools all over the United States hiked their tuition in response to a change in federal law that allowed students to borrow the full amount of their graduate education. And law schools also admitted more students to boost revenues. When the market for lawyers crashed, law schools did not reduce their fees or cut their enrollments sufficiently. The result, to use the Times' language, is a "death spiral" in the legal job market with unemployed or under-employed attorneys carrying mountains of student-load debt that they can't pay off.

Ironically, the glut in lawyers is occurring at the same time distressed student-loan debtors are filing for bankruptcy without the aid of  attorneys. When these overburdened student-loan borrowers file adversary proceedings to discharge their student loans through bankruptcy, they are opposed by loan collection companies that have plenty of high-paid legal talent.

How can this disaster be turned around? The Times recommends expanding the Obama administration's so-called gainful employment rules that tie an institution's eligibility for federal student-aid money to its success in preparing graduates for good jobs. Currently the rule only applies to for-profit law schools, but the Times urges the rule be amended to cover nonprofit law schools as well.

The Times also thinks a cap should be placed on the amount of federal student loans a student can obtain. A cap in federal loan money, the Times believes, would drive tuition down.

 I support both these ideas, but I would go further. I would shut off federal student-aid money to all for-profit schools, including for-profit law schools, which charge extraordinarily high tuition and have lousy records for placing their graduates in good jobs that require law degrees.

For the American people, the stakes are high. Our society is based on the rule of law, and our law schools must produce graduates who are intelligent and have the highest ethical standards. But American law schools have set a poor ethical example for their students. They have bloated their student rolls and raised their tuition for the sole purpose of sucking up student-loan money and enhancing their revenues.

Our justice system will break down completely if our nation's lawyers adopt the ethical standards of the law schools they attended and begin thinking of their profession solely as a way to get rich.

References

Editorial. The Law School Debt Crisis. New York Times, October 25, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/the-law-school-debt-crisis.html

Steven J. Harper. Too Many Law Students, Too Few Legal Jobs. New York Times, August 25, 2015.  Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/too-many-law-students-too-few-legal-jobs.html

Elizabeth Olsen. Burdened With Debt, Law School Graduates Struggle In Job Market. New York Times, April 26, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/business/dealbook/burdened-with-debt-law-school-graduates-struggle-in-job-market.html

 

All Student Loan Debtors Should Read Natalie Kitroeff's Recent Online Article in BloombergBusiness.Com

Every distressed student-loan debtor should read Natalie Kitroeff's recent article in BloombergBusiness.com about Murphy v. U.S. Department of Education and Educational Credit Management Corporation, now pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  And any student-loan debtor who is trying to discharge a student loan in bankruptcy should read the amicus brief filed in that case by the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

The essence of the Murphy case can be summarized in a few words. Robert Murphy took out federal PLUS loans (student loans taken out by parents to pay their children's college costs), but he lost his job as the president of a manufacturing firm.  He's been unemployed for 13 years--too old, he says, to find comparable employment and overqualified for lower-paying jobs in his field.

Today, Murphy is 65 years old, and his total student-loan indebtedness has grown to almost a quarter of a million dollars due to accumulated interest. He and his wife are living on an income of $15,000 a year, which his wife earns working as a teachers aide.

Murphy filed for bankruptcy, seeking relief from his PLUS loans, but a bankruptcy court refused to discharge the debt. Like so many debtors who try to shed their student loans in bankruptcy, Murphy is acting as his own attorney.  His case is now on appeal before the First Circuit.

Murphy hopes to persuade the First Circuit to abandon the harsh Brunner test for determining when it would be an "undue hardship" for insolvent debtors to be forced to repay their student loans. That test requires debtors to show that they cannot repay their student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living, that their financial circumstances aren't likely to change soon, and that they made good faith efforts to repay their loans.

In the Ninth Circuit BAP Court's Roth decision, Judge Pappas filed a concurring opinion arguing that the Brunner test no longer makes sense. He pointed out that the Brunner test was devised at a time when student-loan debtors could discharge their student loans without restriction after a relatively short period of time--after five or seven years.

Today, Judge Pappas explained, student-loan debtors hold a trillion dollars in outstanding student-loan debt. And Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code so that insolvent debtors must prove "undue hardship" no matter when they file for bankruptcy, even if it is decades after the loans were taken out.

John Rao, attorney for the National Consumer Law Center, filed a brilliant amicus brief in support of Murphy, arguing that the Brunner test should be overturned. Rafael Pardo, a nationally renowned legal scholar from Emory Law School, also filed an amicus brief in support of Murphy's position.

If the First Circuit rules in Murphy's favor, bankruptcy might become a viable option for millions of distressed student-loan debtors. And if that happens, the world will turn upside down for the federal government, the federal student-loan program, and the colleges and universities that have feasted off of student-aid money without regard to whether their students could pay off their student loans.

Kitroeff's article pointed out that total outstanding indebtedness has doubled in just seven years. At the current rate of growth, total indebtedness will double again within 10 years, ballooning to well over two trillion dollars.

Let's all say a prayer for Robert Murphy and the two amicus attorneys who came to his aid: John Rao and Rafael Pardo. Ten million people are now delinquent on their student loans or are in default, and nine million more hold deferments or forbearances that temporarily excuse them from making payments.  Almost 4 million people are making payments under income-based repayment plans, which means total indebtedess for most of them is going up, not down, because their loan payments don't cover accruing interest.

This situation can't go on forever, and Robert Murphy may be the guy that ushers in relief for millions of fellow sufferers.  If you are a student-loan debtor in bankruptcy, you must read the amicus briefs in the Murphy case and get the arguments made in those briefs before your bankruptcy judge. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Rao, and Mr. Pardo are on the side of the angels, and I think their arguments will be persuasive to many bankruptcy judges around the United States regardless of what the First Circuit does.

References

Amicus Brief filed by National Consumer Law Center and National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in Support of Appellant (Robert Murphy) in Murphy v. U.S. Department of Education & Educational Credit Management Corporation. (Written by John Rao, esq.) Accessible at: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/bankruptcy/brief-murphy-1st-cir-amicus.pdf

Amicus Brief filed by Rafael Pardo, arguing for reversal of District Court's decision in Murphy v. U.S. Department of education and Educational Credit Management Corporation. Accessible at: http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/murphy-pardo-brief.pdf

Natalie Kitroeff. This Court Case Could Unshackle Americans From Student Debt. BloombergBusiness.com, October 8, 2015. Accessible at:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/this-court-case-could-unshackle-americans-from-student-debt

A Brookings Institution Blogger Asks a Very Good Question: "How well do default rates reflect student loan repayment?"

Robert Kelchen, posted a blog essay on the Brookings Institution's "Brown Center Chalkboard" that asks a very good question: "How well do default rates reflect student loan repayment?'

Kelchen pointed out that "just over half" of the $623 billion in Direct Loans made to students who have entered repayment are  current on their loan payments. Borrowers  with approximately $111 billion in student-loan debt are delinquent or in default.  And borrowers owing another $180 billion are in deferment or forbearance.  In other words, borrowers holding about 46 percent of outstanding Direct Loans aren't making payments.

People whose loans are  in deferment or forbearance aren't counted as defaulters.  But interest is accruing for most of these people, which means their loan balances are getting larger and more difficult to repay.

Kelchen makes several important points in his blog essay, but the most important point is this: "Cohort rates substantially underestimate the percent of students who have been unable to lower their loan balances." And here's the money quote:

Of the nearly 5,700 colleges with data on both [cohort default rates] and repayment rates, the median college had a 14.9 percent three-year [cohort default rate] while 40.8 percent of students did not repay any principal in the first three years after leaving college.  This means that one in four exiting students was not in default, yet did not make a dent in their loan balance in the first three years after entering repayment.

What does this mean?   First of all, a three-year default rate of nearly 15 percent is alarming in itself. But the fact that a quarter of non-defaulting student-loan borrowers did not reduce their loan balances by even a dollar three years after beginning the repayment phase is truly frightening. Those people are not counted as defaulters as long as they retain their  forbearance or deferment status,but their loan balances are getting bigger with each passing month. In short, a lot of people who are currently excused from making loan payments will never pay off their student loans.

When we reflect on the implications of Kelchen's essay along with an earlier Brookings Institution report showing that nearly half of people who attended for-profit colleges default within five years of beginning repayment, we get some sense of the magnitude of the student-loan crisis.

It's time for the Department of Education, Congress and the American public to face this fact: student-loan forbearance options, loan deferment options, and long-term income-based repayment plans are all ways to hide from reality, which is this: millions and millions of people are holding billions of dollars in student-loan debt, which they can't pay off.

And since the Bankruptcy Code makes loan forgiveness so onerous, millions of suffering people will be burdened with this debt for the rest of their lives.

Let's face it, 21st century America is not much different from 18th century England.  Our country doesn't put debtors in prison or deport them to Australia; it just lets them dangle on the outskirts of the American economy until the day they die.

References

Robert Kelchen. How well do default rates reflect student loan repayment? Brookings Institution, The Brown Center Chalkboard, September 30, 2015. Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2015/09/30-default-rates-student-loan-kelchen

You can't win if you don't play: More people should attempt to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy

It's a mess, folks. Seven million people are currently in default on their student loans. Millions more have stopped making payments but aren't counted as defaulters because they obtained economic-hardship deferments, which are given out like candy.  Almost 4 million people are making payments under income-based repayment plans that can last as long as 25 years. Twenty-five years!

Why don't some of these overburdened student-loan debtors file for bankruptcy?  I'll tell you why. Most people believe it is impossible to obtain relief from their student loans in the bankruptcy courts.

But that's not true. Three years ago, Jason Iuliano published an empirical study of student-loan discharges under the Bankruptcy Code's "undue hardship" provision. This is what he found:

• Nearly forty percent of people who attempted to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy process obtained relief.

• People who attempted to discharge their student loans without an attorney were as successful in obtaining bankruptcy relief as people who hired bankruptcy lawyers.

The problem, according to Iuliano, is not that it is impossible to obtain a discharge of student loans in bankruptcy. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T TRY.

In 2007, Iuliano reported, almost a quarter of a million people with student loans filed for bankruptcy (238,446 to be exact). Of that number, less than 300 even attempted to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. Apparently they assumed that it would be useless to try.

Iuliano constructed a model for predicting which factors were most important in obtaining a student-loan discharge. He estimated that 69,000  student-loan debtors  who filed for bankruptcy in 2007 were good candidates for discharge if they had only applied for relief.

In other words, based on Iuliano's research, more insolvent student-loan debtors should be seeking to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy because a fair percentage are likely to be successful. But you can't win if you don't play. 

Iuliano's article was published in 2012 based on 2007 bankruptcy data. I think the percentage of successful student-loan discharges would be higher today than it was during the period Iuliano studied. Several recent bankruptcy court decisions show that at least some courts are beginning to view student-loan debtors with more compassion than courts once did.

In the Roth case, for example, the Ninth Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rejected a loan creditor's argument that Ms. Roth should be put in a 25-year repayment plan. "The law does not require a party to engage in futile acts," the court said.   Roth was a 68-year old woman with chronic health problems living on a Social Security check of less than $800 a month. It would be futile, not to mention callous, to put her on a 25-year income-based repayment plan.

Of course, the Department of Education and its student-loan debt collectors aggressively oppose student-loan discharge efforts in the vast majority of cases, often filing technical motions that make the  discharge process more expensive than necessary. I think  the creditors file these motions to discourage student-loan debtors who file adversary actions without the help of a lawyer. 

Of course, hiring a bankruptcy lawyer to fight the Department of Education can be expensive, and people in bankruptcy generally don't have the money to hire lawyers. Nevertheless, a lot more insolvent debtors should be trying to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy, even if they must do so without a lawyer.

And here are my suggestions for giving overburdened but honest student-loan debtors some bankruptcy relief:

1) Legal Aid clinics should get in the business of representing student-loan debtors. Legal aid clinics, including those that are attached to law schools, should have their attorneys become experts in bankruptcy law--especially the evolving law that relates to student loans; and the clinics should start representing student-loan debtors who seek to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy courts.

2) Public interest organizations should develop free web sites that would provide useful information to people who are seeking to discharge their student-loans in bankruptcy without lawyers. The site should include sample pleadings and sample discovery motions, recent research on student-loan bankruptcies, recent court decisions, and sample briefs that could be used as models for debtors who are fighting the technical motions that DOE and the debt collectors file. 

Can you imagine the impact if 5,000 people tried to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy courts rather than the mere 300 who tried in 2007? I think these people would find the bankruptcy courts are much more sympathetic than the debtors might have expected. More and more frequently, the bankruptcy judges are reviewing the details of these pathetic cases and seeing people who borrowed money in good faith to attend college and simply never made enough money to pay it back. Divorce, illness, unemployment, poor choices in deciding on a major, unscrupulous for-profit colleges--all kinds of unexpected things happened to people who simply wanted to get the training they needed to obtain better jobs so they could support their families and have better lives.

As I have said, the bankruptcy courts are becoming more and more sympathetic to these people.  But distressed student-loan debtors have got to ask for bankruptcy relief in order to get it.

References

Jason Iuliano. An Empirical Assessment of Student Loan Discharge and the Undue Hardship Standard. American Bankruptcy Law Journal 86 (2012), 495. 

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation. 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP. 2013

By the thousands, student-loan borrowers are dropping out of income-based repayment plans

Thousands of student-loan borrowers are dropping out of income-based repayment plans, the U.S. Department of Education admitted recently. As reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, almost 700,000 borrowers dropped out of the plans during the course of  just one year--57 percent of the total number of people who signed up for them.

Why did they drop out? DOE says they lost eligibility because they didn't file their annual income documentation--data the government needs to set borrowers' individual monthly payments.

What happened to those dropouts?  DOE says some of them signed up for economic-hardship deferments, some went back into standard 10-year repayment plans, and some slipped into delinquency.

This must be an astonishing turn of events for the Obama administration, which has aggressively promoted income-based repayment plans as a way to keep student-loan default rates down and give student borrowers some relief from high monthly loan payments. Most people who make monthly payments based on their income have lower payments than people who pay off their loans under the federal government's standard 10-year repayment plan.

There's a catch of course. Income-based repayment plans stretch borrowers' monthly payments out over 20 or even 25 years. Moreover, if borrowers' monthly payments are set too low, the payments will  not cover accruing interest, in which case student-loan debtors will see their loan balances go up rather than down, even if they faithfully make all their monthly payments.

Nevertheless, for student-loan borrowers who are unemployed. marginally employed, or simply borrowed too much money, income-based repayment plans are a lifeline because they can dramatically lower the amount of a student-loan borrower's monthly payments.

So what is the Obama administration doing to turn this situation around? According to the Chronicle,  the Department of Education will soon take over the process of notifying borrowers of their annual income-reporting obligations.  DOE is even consulting with "social and behavioral scientists" in order to craft more effective notices. Lots of luck, guys.

Personally, I was astonished to learn that so many people are falling out of income-based repayment plans--the most generous student-loan repayment programs that the federal government offers.. This development is simply another indication that the federal student-loan program is out of control.

Let's review the evidence one more time:

• The two-year student-loan default rate (the percentage of students from the most recent cohort who default on their loans within two years of beginning repayment) doubled in just seven years, according to DOE's own data. In 2007, DOE reported a two-year default rate of 4.7 percent. In 2013, the two-year default rate was 10 percent.

• Almost 9 million people in the repayment phase of their loans have economic-hardship deferments and are not making payments on their student loans. Meanwhile, their loan balances are increasing due to accruing interest.

• About 1.5 million people have signed up for income-based repayment plans, but more than half of them have already dropped out due to the fact that they didn't file their obligatory annual income reports.

We can tinker with the student-loan program in many ways as the Department of Education and the policy tanks are now doing. But the fact remains that millions of student-loan debtors are under water financially and have basically dropped out of the economy. This reality is illustrated by the fact that more that half of the people in the generous income-based repayment programs are not bothering to file their annual income reports.

The only way out of this morass is to admit how bad the crisis is, which will require DOE to tell the truth about the student-loan default rate. Then we need to crack down on higher-education institutions that are exploiting college students. Finally, we must open up the bankruptcy process to allow honest but unfortunate student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy.

Bleep it, Dude. Let's go bowling. 

References

Robert Cloud & Richard Fossey, Facing the Student-Debt Crisis: Restoring the Integrity of the Federal Student Loan Program. Journal of College & University Law, 40, 467-498.

Kelly Field. Thousands Fall Out of Income-Based Repayment Plans. Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2, 2015.

No Statute of Limitations on Student Loan Debt: How Can That Be Justified?



Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. 

                                 Dante Alighieri 

Awhile back, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill passed by the California legislature  that would have expanded the statute of limitations for bringing sexual abuse lawsuits against private schools, including schools operated by the Catholic Church. The law did not apply to sexual abuse claims against public school teachers.


Cartoon Credit: Carol Simpson

In vetoing the statute, Governor Brown invoked ancient principles of fairness that put time limitations on lawsuits. "Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were specifically enshrined in the English common law by the Limitations Act of 1623," Governor Brown wrote in his veto message. "Ever since, and in every state, including California, various limits have been imposed on the time when lawsuits may still be initiated. Even though valid and profoundly important claims are at stake, all jurisdictions have seen fit to bar actions after a lapse of years."

Statutes of Limitations Invoke Ancient Principles of Fairness

Governor Brown correctly stated the law regarding statutes of limitations. It is not fair, as the courts sometimes put it, for aggrieved parties to “sleep on their rights” and then file a lawsuit long after a claim has grown stale, when memories and witnesses may have faded away and critical documents may have been lost. Thus, all states give claimants a specific time limit for filing a lawsuit. If the claimant fails to file within the time limit, the claimant irrevocably loses the right to seek a remedy in court.

Unfortunately for student loan debtors, these ancient principles of fairness do not apply to student loans. In 1991, Congress passed 20 U.S.C. § 1091a, a statute that abolished all limitation periods that might otherwise apply against specified lenders and governmental entities that seek to collect on student loans. As one scholar succinctly summarized the law, “[O]nce a student contracts for a student loan, the student cannot use a statute of limitations as a defense against collection on that loan by the entities listed in the statute—ever” (Roper, 2005, p. 37, emphasis supplied).

The Fabrizio case: Student-Loan Guarantor Attempts to Collect a 25-Year-Old Judgment

In 2010, this harsh federal law was applied in a case against Anthony Fabrizio, who borrowed about $9,000 in the early 1970s to help pay for his postsecondary education (New York State Higher Education Services Corporation v. Fabrizio, 2010). Apparently, Fabrizio did not pay back the money, and the lender obtained a default judgment against him in 1983 for $9,664.63. In 2008, twenty-five years after the debt had been reduced to judgment, the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation, which (through a predecessor agency) had guaranteed Fabrizio’s loan, told Fabrizio to begin paying off the debt or the agency would start garnishing his wages.

Fabrizio tried to persuade a New York court to enter an order declaring that his debt was deemed paid under a New York law stating that a money judgment is presumed to have been paid after 20 years from when the creditor was first entitled to enforce it.

Unhappily for Mr. Fabrizio, a New York appellate court ruled against him, finding that 20 U.S.C. 1091a, abolishing all statutes of limitation that might otherwise protect a defaulted student-loan debtor, overrode the New York statute of limitation.  Fabrizio can still be made to pay back the loan. Presumably, he is also liable for collection fees and more than 30 years of accumulated interest.

Defaulting Student Loan Debtors Have No Place to Hide

Today, there are millions of people who have defaulted on their student loans, and some of those loans are now quite old. Nevertheless, student-loan defaulters are never off the hook for their debt--no matter how old that debt might be.

As the Fabrizio case illustrates, statutes of limitation do not apply to student-loan debts that are guaranteed by the federal government, and a lender can pursue collection at any time, even if the lender took no action for a quarter of a century.

Moreover, unlike most other overburdened debtors, student-loan debtors cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy unless they can show that failure to discharge their student loans will cause them “undue hardship”  (11. U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B)). As several scholars have observed, it is very difficult for student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy--even in heart-rending circumstances (Pardo & Lacey, 2009, Fossey, 1997). 

In fact, student-loan debtors who fail to repay their loans can have their Social Security checks garnished, a practice that the Supreme Court approved in the 2005 decision of Lockhart v. United States.  People who took out student loans in their early twenties and never paid them back can see their Social Security income diminished by their failure to discharge their student-loan obligations (Cloud, 2006).

Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here

For millions of college students, the federal student loan program has become a nightmare. Over the years, Congress has passed harsh legislation that has stripped student-loan debtors of traditional legal protections like statutes of limitation and unfettered access to the bankruptcy courts.  As a result, for individuals who default on their student loans, even those who took out their loans in good faith, the famous passage from Dante seems chillingly appropriate: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”  

**********

Note: Parts of this essay were taken from an essay originally published in 2010 in Teachers College Record.  The citation for the original article is Richard Fossey & Robert C. Cloud, Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here: Defaulting Student Loan Debtors Have No Place to Hide. Teachers College Record, October 12, 2010 at http://www.tcrecord.org, ID Number: 16195.

References

Chae v. SLM Corporation, 593 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010).

Cloud, R.C. (2006). Offsetting Social Security benefits to repay student loans: Pay us now or pay us later, Education Law Reporter, 208, 11-21.

Fossey, R. (1997).  "The certainty of hopelessness:" Are courts too harsh toward bankrupt student loan debtors?  Journal of Law and Education, 26, 29-48. 

Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (9^th ed. 2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005).

Joseph Mack (2006). Nullum Tempus: Governmental immunity to statutes of limitation, laches, and statutes of repose. Defense Counsel Journal, 73, 180-196.

New York Higher Education Services Corporation v. Fabrizio, 900 N.Y.S.2d (A.D. 3 Dept. 2010).

Raphael I. Pardo & Michelle R. Lacey (2009).  The real student-loan scandal: Undue hardship discharge litigation.  American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 83, 179-235.

Glen E. Roper (2005). Eternal student loan liability: Who can sue under 20 U.S.C. 1091a? Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 20, 35-78.

It is madness to borrow money for six years to get a four-year college degree

Complete College America, a nonprofit public advocacy group located in Indianapolis, issued a report recently entitled Four-Year Myth. The report starkly documents what everyone in higher education already knows: The vast majority of college students do not complete their four-year degrees in four years.

Here are some of the report's key findings:

• Only 5 percent of students in two-year associate degree programs graduate on time.

• Only 19 percent of students in four-year programs at non-flagship universities obtain their degrees within four years.

• At flagship institutions, where the nation's top students attend college, only 36 percent of the students complete their four-year degrees on time.

Moreover, the report points out, a lot of students accumulated significantly more credit hours than they need to graduate.  On average, students at non-flagship institutions have 133 credits on their transcripts although most need only about 120 credit hours to graduate.

The report acknowledges that there are many good reasons why many students cannot graduate on time.  Nevertheless, as the report succinctly stated, "[S]omething is clearly wrong when the overwhelming majority of public colleges graduate less than 50 percent of their full-time students in four years."

The report lists several reasons for the low on-time graduation rates at most public colleges and universities:

• Lighter course loads.  Many students don't take enough credits while in school to graduate on time.  A full course load at most colleges is 15 credit hours per semester, but only 50 percent of the students at four-year institutions take a full course load.  Only 29 percent of students in two-year programs take full course loads.

• Remediation courses.  According to the report, 1.7 million students take remediation courses each year but only 1 out of 10 remedial students graduate.

• Uninformed choices.  Too many students make poor choices when enrolling for classes, which causes them to take courses that won't move them toward on-time graduation.  Part of this problem can be attributed to an inadequate number of counselors at many universities.

/As Four-Year Myth points out, students who take six years to obtain a four-year degree often have significantly more student-loan debt than students who graduate on time.  At the University of Texas, for example, students who graduate on time accumulate on average about $19,000 in debt. Students who take six years to graduate are burdened (on average) with $32,000 in student loans.

Four-Year Myth is a very useful report, but in my mind, it did not place enough emphasis on the role that student loans play in the downward slide of on-time graduation rates.  I believe a lot of unmotivated students are taking just enough credit hours to qualify for student loans without realizing that they are accumulating a lot of unnecessary debt by taking a more leisurely path toward graduation. When a mandatory course is unavailable to them in a given semester, some of them will enroll in an unnecessary course solely to meet the minimum number of hours they need to qualify for student loans.

The report makes several good suggestions for improving on-time graduation rates, which I will not repeat here. But I would like to add an additional suggestion: The federal student loan program should only be available to a student for a maximum of four years of full time study.  Thus, students in four-year programs who take six years to graduate or students who take longer than four years to graduate because they changed colleges or changed majors should be required to pay the cost for delayed graduation out of their own pockets if those costs exceed the cost of being enrolled full time for four years.

Call it tough love if you like. But the federal government is doing America's young people no favor by allowing them to borrow money semester after semester while they wander around colleges and universities for five, six, or seven years when they are enrolled in four-year degree programs.

And we should pay special attention to one of the report's most shocking findings: Only 5 percent of students enrolled in two-year associate degree programs graduate on time.  Our community colleges, which purport to serve disadvantaged students, have fallen down on the job if they cant' get their on-time graduation rates above five percent.

References

Four-Year Myth. Complete College America, 2014. Accessible at: file:///C:/Users/wrf7707/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/9UM6POWU/4-Year-Myth.pdf

Tamar Lewin. Most Don't Earn Degree in Four Years, Study Finds.New York Times, December 2, 2014, p. A14.