That’s what you should be inferring from Charles Lane’s WaPo op-ed, “How student loans help keep expensive schools in business.”
Lane argues that Grad PLUS loans are, “a de facto bailout, enabling many law schools to maintain capacity and delay reforms, or settle for modest ones, while continuing to charge more or less the same high tuition.” The author’s position, to say nothing of his article’s title, largely resembles my early forays into the subject, especially, “How Grad PLUS Loans Sustain Zombie Law Schools.” It’s always nice to see mainstream sources arrive at my conclusions.
It’s not so nice when they don’t fully understand the implications. If Congress gets rid of Grad PLUS loans, or scales graduate lending back dramatically, then some law schools will demand their students substitute the tuition difference with private loans. These loans won’t be easily discharged in bankruptcy, so it will be a strong reason to stay clear of law school, even more prestigious ones.
Before I go, I just wanted to editorialize on Lane’s opening: “Income inequality bedevils the United States, as does debt, of the public and private varieties.”
This is bad writing. One, “income inequality” doesn’t play any role in the editorial, so a good editor would’ve axed it. Two, public debt doesn’t bedevil the U.S. at all. Currently, 10-year treasuries are trading at 2.18%.
Yes, I’m not the first to recognize that WaPo caters to people who insist public debt is the second evilest thing in the history of evil (no. 1 is inflation), but eliminating Grad PLUS loans won’t close the deficit. Does Lane write editorials against corporate welfare?
Still, there are many correct points in the article, and it suggests that our East Coast media elite are finally beginning to turn on student loans instead of debtors—but not totally.