This is the real question that legal academic defenders of IBR [income-based repayment for student loans], such as Philip Schrag and Lisa Lerman, need to answer. It's no real answer to respond, as Schrag does to Brian Tamanaha's criticisms, that lots of goods and services in our economy are subsidized by public money in one way or another.
So what? I don't suppose Schrag (a self-described "conservative") would consider that observation an adequate defense for farm subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland, or tax breaks which encourage people to buy more giant SUVs
than they otherwise would, or which enable building bridges to nowhere.
than they otherwise would, or which enable building bridges to nowhere.
So why should IBR function as a massive taxpayer subsidy to law school budgets, which it certainly will if it begins to "solve" the problem of skyrocketing law school costs in the way Schrag envisions it will?
More
No comments:
Post a Comment