Senators say US government shouldn’t be funding worthless degrees from bottom-feeding law schools

Law schools just made some new enemies. This week, lawmakers from both parties sharply criticized U.S. law schools for leaving students with overwhelming debt and degrees that may not get them jobs. . . .

On Monday, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) blamed the government’s generous loan programs for encouraging troubled law schools to hike prices. In 2006, Congress made new federal loans available to graduate students, allowing them to take out as much debt as they want in order to finance their education.

“Now that we’ve taken the cap off what you can borrow for graduate courses, they have decided they are going to just charge to the heavens in terms of tuition for worthless, worthless law school degrees” said Durbin, at a Congressional meeting on student debt this week, referring to for-profit law schools.

Michael Simkovic is very offended by the failure to recognize that the hordes of matrics with 2.3 GPAs and 9th percentile LSAT scores flooding into the Infilaw schools will be on average one million dollars richer (discounted to present value) on the day they graduate, because even though a huge percentage of them will never practice law, employers will gladly pay a steep premium to hire a graduate of a for-profit law school with an open enrollment policy.

Of course Simkovic is literally paid by LSAC and the lender collectively owned by almost all ABA law schools to crank out articles demonstrating by theology and geometry that it’s a great idea to go $200,000 into debt to attend a school where 70% of graduates fail the bar on their first try, even though the school is paying the most hopeless cases not to take it, so his scholarly conclusions should probably be taken with a pillar of salt.