Recently, I wrote about Anna Alaburda, who sued Thomas Jefferson School of Law, her law school alma mater. Alaburda spent $150,000 to attend TJSL. After graduating in 2008, she was unable to find a remunerative law job; and her student loan debt grew to $170,000. She claimed she was induced to enroll at Thomas Jefferson by the law school's false assertions that most of its graduates got well-paying legal jobs.
Alaburda's case went to trial, and this week a jury ruled against her. Alaburda's loss is the latest in a string of defeats by unemployed or underemployed law school graduates who sued their law schools for fraud or misrepresentation.
Some unemployed or underemployed lawyers have filed for bankruptcy to discharge their student loans, but they've had mixed success. Michael Hedlund, a graduate of Willamette Law School, succeeded in getting a partial discharge of his law-school debt, but he endured ten years of litigation before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in his favor in 2013.
More recently, two heavily indebted law-school graduates were denied bankruptcy relief. Mark Tetzlaff, racked up thousands of dollars in debt to pursue post-secondary studies; and he eventually received an MBA and a law degree from Florida Coastal School of Law, a bottom-tier law school. Tetzlaff actually paid off his law school debt, which he was required to do in order to get Florida Coastal to release his transcripts. But he never obtained a good job as an attorney, and he was unable to pay off other student loans. When he filed for bankruptcy in 2012, he owed $260,000 in student-loan debt.
The Eighth Circuit was not sympathetic to Mr. Tetzlaff's plight and refused to discharge his student loans in a decision released last year. And the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal.
Likewise, a bankruptcy court in California ruled against Mark Lilly in 2013. Like Mr. Tetzlaff, Mr. Lilly took on a massive amount of student-loan debt, including debt he acquired to obtain an MBA and a law degree from McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, which is not a top-ranked law school. His request for bankruptcy relief was denied, but he never found work as a lawyer.
This is the tragic reality: the legal job market has imploded, but law schools have not reduced enrollments sufficiently in response to the shrinking demand for lawyers. Law schools continue to pump out far more attorneys than American society needs, and many law schools have lowered their admissions standards just to get students in the door. For people like Mark Tetzlaff and Mark Lilly, who graduated from mediocre law schools, there are virtually no jobs. In California, for example, there are now 2.5 law graduates for every job opening.
Thus far, law graduates have borne most of the suffering created by a shrinking job market, especially graduates who received their degrees from nonprestigious law schools like Florida Coastal, Thomas Jefferson, and McGeorge. On average, law graduates who borrow to finance their studies acquire $140,000 in student-loan debt. Graduates of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where Anna Alaburda obtained her degree, now graduate with an average debt load of $180,000! Many simply can't find jobs that will allow them to pay off their student loans.
In my view, some of the suffering experienced by unemployed law graduates should be shifted to the law schools, which have charged students exorbitant tuition and are graduating more students than our economy can absorb. These schools purport to maintain the highest ethical standards, but in reality, many of them are making admissions decisions based on their revenue needs and not the welfare of their students.
Whether or not they are guilty of misrepresentation, as Ms. Alaburda asserted against TJSL, many law schools are certainly guilty of behaving contrary to the public interest. Surely, these schools should help their unemployed graduates pay back massive student-loan debt that was acquired to obtain degrees that are virtually worthless.
References
Hedlund v. Educ. Resources Inst., Inc., 718 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2013).
Lilly v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n, 538 B.R. 45 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2013).
Elizabeth Olsen. Law Student Gets Her Day in Court. New York Times, March 6, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/business/dealbook/court-to-hear-suit-accusing-law-school-of-inflating-job-data.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1
Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 794 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2015). Accessible at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1708687.html
Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP, 759 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2014). Accessible at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0139p-06.pdf
Gary Warth. Jury rejects fraud claim against law school. San Diego Union-Tribune, March 24, 2016. Accessible at http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/mar/24/thomas-jefferson-law-school-verdict/
Joshua Wright. The Oversaturated Job Market for Lawyers Continues and On-the-Side Legal Work Grows. EMSI blog, January 10, 2014. Accessible at: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2014/01/10/the-oversatured-job-market-for-lawyers-continues/
Friday, March 25, 2016
Monday, March 21, 2016
Student Loan Bankruptcy and Educational Credit Management Corporation: Who pays the ECMC lawyers?
I know quite a bit about the student loan crisis. After studying both governmental and nongovernmental documents, I know the student-loan default rate is much higher than the government reports. According to the Department of Eduction, the three-year default rate is about 10 percent, but the people who stop paying on their loans is at least 30 percent. And among people who attended for-profit colleges, the default rate is at least 50 percent.
I also know a lot about college borrowers who try to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. Shedding student loans through bankruptcy is difficult, but over the past three years or so, a number of bankruptcy courts have ruled in favor of college-loan debtors, showing both compassion and common sense.
But I dont' know who pays the lawyers for the student-debt collection agencies that fight student debtors in the bankruptcy courts or how much those lawyers get paid.
In particular, who paid the lawyers for Educational Credit Management Corporation, which opposed bankruptcy relief for Janet Roth, an elderly woman with chronic health problems who was living on Social Security income of only $774 a month? And ECMC lawyers didn't just fight Ms. Roth in the bankruptcy court, it fought her all the way to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And everybody knew that Jane Roth's income was so low that she would have paid nothing on her student loans even if she lost her case.
Who paid the ECMC lawyers who appealed a bankruptcy decision in favor of George and Melanie Johnson, a couple with two school-age children who lost their home in a foreclosure proceeding?
And who ultimately paid the tab for ECMC to fight bankruptcy relief for Janice Stevenson, a woman in her 50s with a history of homelessness who was living on only at thousand dollars a month?
A New York Times article reported that ECMC has been accused of ruthless loan-collection tactics, and I would say ruthless is putting it mildly. And take my word for it, ECMC lawyers aren't working for free.
To paraphrase the great Lynyrd Skynyrd, I know a little about student loans and bankruptcy, and baby I can guess the rest. I think the taxpayers are paying ECMC's lawyers--either directly or indirectly.
In a letter issued last July, Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education Lynne Mahaffie wrote that student-loan debt collectors should take cost into account when deciding when to oppose bankruptcy discharge for distressed college-loan borrowers. But if ECMC is absorbing the cost of attorney fees to fight Jane Roth, Janice Stevenson, and Mr. and Mrs.Johnson, why would the Department of Education care what ECMC is spending in its collection efforts?
Certainly ECMC wasn't taking cost into account when it dragged Janet Roth through the federal courts for several years. There could have been no monetary gain to the taxpayers in fighting bankruptcy relief for Ms. Roth.
In the months to come, we will see if DOE really meant it when it authorized Mahaffie to say that DOE and its student-loan debt collectors would not fight bankruptcy discharge of student loans when it is not cost effective to do so.
My guess is this. ECMC will continue harassing student-loan debtors in the bankruptcy courts as long as its lawyers get paid for doing so. So if Lynn Mahaffie really meant what she said in that 2015 letter, DOE needs to change the system whereby ECMC lawyers get rich hounding people like Jane Roth, Janice Stevenson, and George and Melanie Johnson.
References
Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor is Accused of Ruthless Tactics on Student Debt. New York Times, January 1, 2014. Acccessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/loan-monitor-is-accused-of-ruthless-tactics-on-student-debt.html?_r=0
Lynn Mahaffie. Undue Hardship Discharge of Title IV Loans in Bankruptcy Adversary Proceedings, July 7, 2015, GEN 15-13. Accesible at https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN1513.pdf
Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). Accessible at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2013/04/16/RothV%20ECMC%20opinion-FINAL%20AZ-11-1233.pdf
Student Loan Bankruptcy and Educational Credit Management Corporation: Who pays the ECMC lawyers?
Say I know a little
I know a little about it
I know a little
I know a little 'bout it
I know a little 'bout love
And baby I can guess the rest.
Lynyrd Skynyrd
I Know A Little
I know quite a bit about the student loan crisis. After studying both governmental and nongovernmental documents, I know the student-loan default rate is much higher than the government reports. According to the Department of Eduction, the three-year default rate is about 10 percent, but the people who stop paying on their loans is at least 30 percent. And among people who attended for-profit colleges, the default rate is at least 50 percent.
I also know a lot about college borrowers who try to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. Shedding student loans through bankruptcy is difficult, but over the past three years or so, a number of bankruptcy courts have ruled in favor of college-loan debtors, showing both compassion and common sense.
But I dont' know who pays the lawyers for the student-debt collection agencies that fight student debtors in the bankruptcy courts or how much those lawyers get paid.
In particular, who paid the lawyers for Educational Credit Management Corporation, which opposed bankruptcy relief for Janet Roth, an elderly woman with chronic health problems who was living on Social Security income of only $774 a month? And ECMC lawyers didn't just fight Ms. Roth in the bankruptcy court, it fought her all the way to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And everybody knew that Jane Roth's income was so low that she would have paid nothing on her student loans even if she lost her case.
Who paid the ECMC lawyers who appealed a bankruptcy decision in favor of George and Melanie Johnson, a couple with two school-age children who lost their home in a foreclosure proceeding?
And who ultimately paid the tab for ECMC to fight bankruptcy relief for Janice Stevenson, a woman in her 50s with a history of homelessness who was living on only at thousand dollars a month?
A New York Times article reported that ECMC has been accused of ruthless loan-collection tactics, and I would say ruthless is putting it mildly. And take my word for it, ECMC lawyers aren't working for free.
To paraphrase the great Lynyrd Skynyrd, I know a little about student loans and bankruptcy, and baby I can guess the rest. I think the taxpayers are paying the fees of ECMC's lawyers--either directly or indirectly.
In a letter issued last July, Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education Lynne Mahaffie wrote that student-loan debt collectors should take cost into account when deciding when to oppose bankruptcy discharge for distressed college-loan borrowers. But if ECMC is absorbing the cost of attorney fees to fight Jane Roth, Janice Stevenson, and Mr. and Mrs.Johnson, why would the Department of Education care what ECMC is spending in its collection efforts?
Certainly ECMC wasn't taking cost into account when it dragged Janet Roth through the federal courts for several years. There could have been no monetary gain to the taxpayers in fighting bankruptcy relief for Ms. Roth.
In the months to come, we will see if DOE really meant it when it authorized Mahaffie to say that DOE and its student-loan debt collectors would not fight bankruptcy discharge of student loans when it is not cost effective to do so.
My guess is this. ECMC will continue harassing student-loan debtors in the bankruptcy courts as long as its lawyers get paid for doing so. So if Lynn Mahaffie really meant what she said in that 2015 letter, DOE needs to change the system whereby ECMC lawyers get rich hounding people like Jane Roth, Janice Stevenson, and George and Melanie Johnson.
References
Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor is Accused of Ruthless Tactics on Student Debt. New York Times, January 1, 2014. Acccessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/loan-monitor-is-accused-of-ruthless-tactics-on-student-debt.html?_r=0
Lynn Mahaffie. Undue Hardship Discharge of Title IV Loans in Bankruptcy Adversary Proceedings, July 7, 2015, GEN 15-13. Accesible at https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN1513.pdf
Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). Accessible at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2013/04/16/RothV%20ECMC%20opinion-FINAL%20AZ-11-1233.pdf
Friday, March 18, 2016
Sujit Choudhry, Dean of UC Berkeley Law School, resigns deanship in wake of sexual harassment charge but stays on faculty as tenured professor. Shouldn't he be fired?
Everyone in higher education is a progressive--the new word for liberal. Academics deplore all forms of discrimination: ageism, racism, homophobia, abilityism, etc. But the scholarly community particularly despises sexism in all its forms: sexual harassment, groping, sexist jokes, and the denigration of women in the workplace. Several universities have harshly disciplined male students for behaving boorishly to their female classmates--sometimes without due process.
But higher education's intolerance toward sexual harassment only extends to students--not college administrators. When administrators misbehave, universities frequently try to cover up the scandal; and often the offender is asked to do no more than step down from an administrative post and return to the faculty.
And this brings me to the story of Sujit Choudhry, who stepped down as Dean of UC Berkeley Law School after he was sued for sexual harassment by a female subordinate, Tyann Sorrell. The University investigated Sorrell's complaint before she filed her lawsuit and concluded that Choudhry had indeed been guilty of sexual misconduct.
But the University just gave Choudhry a slap on the wrist. He received a 10 percent pay cut for one year--reducing his half-million dollar salary by about $50,000. Meanwhile, Sorrell, the victim in the case, was put on paid leave.
This sorry episode came to public light when Sorrell sued, arguing that the penalty against Choudhry was too light. Choudry stepped down and is now a tenured law professor at Berkeley, making a paltry $284,000 a year.
This is how the modern American university works these days. College administrators howl like Puritans at the Salem witch trials when a student behaves too aggressively toward a date at a frat party. But when an insider gets caught with his hands in the wrong places, he gets treated with kid gloves.
But let's ask this question. How did Sujit Choudhry become Dean of a prestigious law school in the first place? He is a Canadian (born in India) who doesn't even have an American law degree, although he did acquire a master's degree in law (a nine-month program) from Harvard Law School.
Choudhry is described as a renowned expert in comparative international law, and he does have a modest record of publishing law review articles. His article entitled "Method In Comparative Constitutional Law: A Comment On Law and Versteeg," published in the New York University Law Review, is a page-turner. And I'm sure you've read his groundbreaking essay entitled "Living Originalism in India," which was published in the Yale Journal of Law and Humanities. It's been on Best Seller lists for months.
But should an American law school pay this guy a half million dollars a year to be a dean or even a quarter million dollars a year to be a professor? And when the university concluded that he harassed a female subordinate, shouldn't he have been fired?
Among those who borrow to pay for their studies, Berkeley law students now graduate with more than $140,000 in student-loan debt. Berkeley law students now know where their money is going--to guys like Sujit Choudhry.
References
Nanette Aimov. UC Berkely law dean Choudhry resigns amid harassment scandal. San Francisco Chronicle, March 20, 2016. Accessible at http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-Berkeley-law-dean-resigns-amid-harassment-6882570.php
But higher education's intolerance toward sexual harassment only extends to students--not college administrators. When administrators misbehave, universities frequently try to cover up the scandal; and often the offender is asked to do no more than step down from an administrative post and return to the faculty.
And this brings me to the story of Sujit Choudhry, who stepped down as Dean of UC Berkeley Law School after he was sued for sexual harassment by a female subordinate, Tyann Sorrell. The University investigated Sorrell's complaint before she filed her lawsuit and concluded that Choudhry had indeed been guilty of sexual misconduct.
But the University just gave Choudhry a slap on the wrist. He received a 10 percent pay cut for one year--reducing his half-million dollar salary by about $50,000. Meanwhile, Sorrell, the victim in the case, was put on paid leave.
This sorry episode came to public light when Sorrell sued, arguing that the penalty against Choudhry was too light. Choudry stepped down and is now a tenured law professor at Berkeley, making a paltry $284,000 a year.
This is how the modern American university works these days. College administrators howl like Puritans at the Salem witch trials when a student behaves too aggressively toward a date at a frat party. But when an insider gets caught with his hands in the wrong places, he gets treated with kid gloves.
But let's ask this question. How did Sujit Choudhry become Dean of a prestigious law school in the first place? He is a Canadian (born in India) who doesn't even have an American law degree, although he did acquire a master's degree in law (a nine-month program) from Harvard Law School.
Choudhry is described as a renowned expert in comparative international law, and he does have a modest record of publishing law review articles. His article entitled "Method In Comparative Constitutional Law: A Comment On Law and Versteeg," published in the New York University Law Review, is a page-turner. And I'm sure you've read his groundbreaking essay entitled "Living Originalism in India," which was published in the Yale Journal of Law and Humanities. It's been on Best Seller lists for months.
But should an American law school pay this guy a half million dollars a year to be a dean or even a quarter million dollars a year to be a professor? And when the university concluded that he harassed a female subordinate, shouldn't he have been fired?
Among those who borrow to pay for their studies, Berkeley law students now graduate with more than $140,000 in student-loan debt. Berkeley law students now know where their money is going--to guys like Sujit Choudhry.
References
Nanette Aimov. UC Berkely law dean Choudhry resigns amid harassment scandal. San Francisco Chronicle, March 20, 2016. Accessible at http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-Berkeley-law-dean-resigns-amid-harassment-6882570.php
Sujit Choudhry. Method In Comparative Constitutional Law: A Comment On Law and Versteeg. 87 New York University Law Review 2078 (2012). Accessible at http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-87-number-6/method-comparative-constitutional-law-comment-law-and-versteeg
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Hucksters preying on student-loan debtors: They should go to jail
In December 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a federal lawsuit against an outfit called Student Loan Processing.US (SLP) and James Krause, the company's sole owner. CFPB accused Krause and SLP of preying on unsuspecting student-loan borrowers who were looking for help in obtaining relief from oppressive student-loan debt.
According to CFPB, the defendants "charged consumers illegal upfront enrollment fees before providing any services, deceived customers about the cost of their services, and falsely represented an affiliation with the Department of Education." Specifically, the Bureau accused Krause and SLP of charging student-loan debtors an upfront fee for debt-relief services that debtors could have have obtained for themselves for free and then charging a $39 monthly fee every month for the entire repayment period.CFPB claimed in its complaint that SLP received "millions of dollars" from student-loan debtors and that it "misrepresented to consumers, directly or by implication, that they were agents of the U.S. Department of Education or were affiliated with it in some capacity."
Apparently, student borrowers who used SLP's services to refinance their loan in a long-term income-based repayment plan would pay $39 a month to SLP for the entire repayment period, which could be up to 20 or 25 years! And borrowers whose income was so low that they would pay nothing under an income-based repayment plan would still pay SLP $39 a month.
CFB announced this week that the case is about to be settled. The Bureau released a proposed stipulated final judgment whereby SLP will stop its activities but will "neither admit nor deny any allegations in [CFPB's]complaint" except as stated in the court's final order.
So--case closed.
But Student Loan Processing isn't the only huckster preying on distressed student-loan debtors. In a Forbes.com article, Maggie McGrath listed nine other companies operating in several states that were being sued by state or federal agencies for engaging in similar practices.
So what can we say about Student Loan Processing.US and similar companies? First of all,the government should do more than sue these predators in civil court; people who profit from preying on desperate student debtors should be prosecuted and sent to jail.
And if it is not a crime to do what CFPB accused SLP of doing, then it should be. President Obama should recommend new legislation to criminalize predatory behavior against student debtors, and Congress should take action.
In my view, these sleazy so-called "student debt relief" companies are just another sign that the government's wild scheme of moving college-loan borrowers into long-term income-based repayment plans is a failure. Even if these poor debtors are not fleeced by hucksters, they are forced into repayment plans that can stretch over their entire lives. As I explained in an earlier blog, Brenda Butler, who graduated from college in 1995, struggled for many years to repay her student loans. Although she repaid more than the amount she borrowed, the total amount she owed doubled due to penalties and accrued interest. Finally, she defaulted and then entered into a 25-year income-based repayment plan. Butler won't be finished paying off her student-loan debt until 2037--42 years after graduating from college! And a heartless bankruptcy judge denied her request for a discharge of her student-loan debt.
Most people who sign up for long-term repayment plans will make monthly loan payments that are so low that interest continues to accrue, which means these borrowers will never pay off their loans. Thus, they will be on a treadmill, making token payments for as long as a quarter of a century.
There is only one way out of this quagmire of student-loan debt--now totally $1.3 trillion People who can't pay back their student loans and still maintain a decent standard of living should be able to discharge their loan obligations in bankruptcy court.
Some day, this simple reality will be apparent to everyone. But until that day comes, millions of Americans are suffering.
References
CFPB Takes Action to Shut Down Illegal Student Debt Relief Scheme. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, March 15, 2016. Accessible at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-to-shut-down-illegal-student-debt-relief-scheme/
Maggie McGrath. Student Debt Dishonor Roll: Meet the Hucksters Preying on Desperate Student Debtors. Forbes.com, July 29, 2015. Accessible at http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2015/07/29/student-debt-dishonor-roll/#2d2957823a34
According to CFPB, the defendants "charged consumers illegal upfront enrollment fees before providing any services, deceived customers about the cost of their services, and falsely represented an affiliation with the Department of Education." Specifically, the Bureau accused Krause and SLP of charging student-loan debtors an upfront fee for debt-relief services that debtors could have have obtained for themselves for free and then charging a $39 monthly fee every month for the entire repayment period.CFPB claimed in its complaint that SLP received "millions of dollars" from student-loan debtors and that it "misrepresented to consumers, directly or by implication, that they were agents of the U.S. Department of Education or were affiliated with it in some capacity."
Apparently, student borrowers who used SLP's services to refinance their loan in a long-term income-based repayment plan would pay $39 a month to SLP for the entire repayment period, which could be up to 20 or 25 years! And borrowers whose income was so low that they would pay nothing under an income-based repayment plan would still pay SLP $39 a month.
CFB announced this week that the case is about to be settled. The Bureau released a proposed stipulated final judgment whereby SLP will stop its activities but will "neither admit nor deny any allegations in [CFPB's]complaint" except as stated in the court's final order.
So--case closed.
But Student Loan Processing isn't the only huckster preying on distressed student-loan debtors. In a Forbes.com article, Maggie McGrath listed nine other companies operating in several states that were being sued by state or federal agencies for engaging in similar practices.
So what can we say about Student Loan Processing.US and similar companies? First of all,the government should do more than sue these predators in civil court; people who profit from preying on desperate student debtors should be prosecuted and sent to jail.
And if it is not a crime to do what CFPB accused SLP of doing, then it should be. President Obama should recommend new legislation to criminalize predatory behavior against student debtors, and Congress should take action.
In my view, these sleazy so-called "student debt relief" companies are just another sign that the government's wild scheme of moving college-loan borrowers into long-term income-based repayment plans is a failure. Even if these poor debtors are not fleeced by hucksters, they are forced into repayment plans that can stretch over their entire lives. As I explained in an earlier blog, Brenda Butler, who graduated from college in 1995, struggled for many years to repay her student loans. Although she repaid more than the amount she borrowed, the total amount she owed doubled due to penalties and accrued interest. Finally, she defaulted and then entered into a 25-year income-based repayment plan. Butler won't be finished paying off her student-loan debt until 2037--42 years after graduating from college! And a heartless bankruptcy judge denied her request for a discharge of her student-loan debt.
Most people who sign up for long-term repayment plans will make monthly loan payments that are so low that interest continues to accrue, which means these borrowers will never pay off their loans. Thus, they will be on a treadmill, making token payments for as long as a quarter of a century.
There is only one way out of this quagmire of student-loan debt--now totally $1.3 trillion People who can't pay back their student loans and still maintain a decent standard of living should be able to discharge their loan obligations in bankruptcy court.
Some day, this simple reality will be apparent to everyone. But until that day comes, millions of Americans are suffering.
References
CFPB Takes Action to Shut Down Illegal Student Debt Relief Scheme. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, March 15, 2016. Accessible at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-to-shut-down-illegal-student-debt-relief-scheme/
Maggie McGrath. Student Debt Dishonor Roll: Meet the Hucksters Preying on Desperate Student Debtors. Forbes.com, July 29, 2015. Accessible at http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2015/07/29/student-debt-dishonor-roll/#2d2957823a34
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)