Graduating students at the University of California at Berkeley on May 18 (Tony Avelar/AP)

Making money off the student loan industry isn’t just for big banks anymore. Thanks to new lending rules and historically low interest rates, the federal government is now getting a sizable piece of the action.

Commercial banks like Sallie Mae, a former government agency now the nation’s largest private student loan lender, continue to make an enormous profit (Sallie Mae reported $939 million in profit for 2012).

But today, nearly three years after the government cut commercial banks out of the federal student loan market, banks aren’t the only ones profiting from people seeking a degree. Now that the Department of Education is responsible for lending to students directly, the government is making big money off the nation’s scholars.

Current students and recent graduates currently carry $1.1 trillion in outstanding debt—more than the nation’s combined credit card debt.

The Congressional Budget Office in February estimated that the Department of Education will make $35.5 billion in profit in 2013 from student loan programs. But that number was just revised this month to $50.6 billion in profits—a 43 percent increase for the year.

“Who’s making the most money right now is the federal government,” Tobin Van Ostern, deputy director of the student advocacy group Campus Progress, told Yahoo News.

It’s worth noting that the $50.6 billion is just an estimate—loans are unlikely to be repaid at the estimated rate, and other factors are likely to change, like the cost of servicing loans. And profits are expected to decrease in coming years—in 2019, the government’s profit is projected by CBO to be about $4.85 billion.

But the 2013 projection puts the Department of Education’s student loan profits above those of last year’s most profitable company, Exxon Mobil, which made $41 billion, according to Forbes’ rankings.

So how did this happen?

The federal government is is borrowing at interest rates that have been kept unusually low since the recession in order to stimulate the still-limping economy. The Department of Education then makes loans at higher rates.

Even student loan advocates at organizations unhappy about the situation—Campus Progress and U.S. PIRG—say nothing nefarious is behind the federal government making money off student loans.

“Nobody knew we would be in this really quirky economic malaise which has created this ultralow interest rate environment,” said Christine Lindstrom, higher education program director at U.S. PIRG, which advocated for the government to cut big banks out of the federal student loan equation.

But advocates say the situation is unfair and must be changed.

While homeowners, corporations, local governments and other entities are busy refinancing their loans to take advantage of current interest rates—which stand at about 3.5 percent average for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage—college graduates with federal student loans are locked in to 6.8 percent rates or higher, previously established by Congress. Rates specifically for federally subsidized need-based Stafford loans (of which there are more than 7 million borrowers each year) are are set to double July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent barring congressional intervention.

Members of Congress, interest groups, the White House and others have proposed solutions to offer lower rates to students in the current market and many have argued against the Stafford loan increase. But meanwhile, money is flowing back into the government.

“This is our major complaint—the federal student loan program is a public good and should be run as such and shouldn’t be run with a high profit margin baked into it,” Lindstrom said.

The government is also effectively collecting the student debt, which allows it to turn even more profit.

Department of Education press secretary Daren Briscoe wrote in an email exchange with Yahoo News that the government’s profit is largely a function of the increase in student loan rates set by Congress. And he noted that the department supports the president’s student loan reform proposal, which would link rates to the Treasury’s cost of borrowing, fix those rates for the life of the loan, and expand the “Pay as You Earn” repayment option to link repayment plans to income levels.

“An affordable, high-quality college education remains one of the best investments you can make, and federal student loans are an important part of that equation,” Briscoe wrote. “That said, it’s important that students aren’t saddled with unmanageable debt, and that’s why the proposal in the president’s FY 2014 budget provides a long-term, deficit-neutral solution with affordable, market-based rates.”

Though the government reaps the vast majority of the profits from the student loan industry, private lenders are still raking it in. Private loans make up a fraction of the $1.1 trillion student loan debt load, but it’s still a sizable amount—more than $150 billion in 2012, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The fact that private lenders—such as Sallie Mae and Wells Fargo—have been barred from the federal program means they don’t have the government oversight they once did. But they are still collecting on federal loans they made before 2010 and are establishing new private loans and other ways of making money related to the loan industry.

The 2012 annual report from the CFPB found that banks are making even more money from loans because there are fewer affordable repayment options for private borrowers than for those who hold direct federal loans. Income-based repayment plans offered to federal loan borrowers, for example, are much less available to those with private loans.

Private loans also often have higher interest rates, are still difficult to refinance, and are made under fewer consumer protections than federal loans, all making them more profitable to lenders, the CFPB report said.

The group has expressed concern over the potential domino effect that private loan debt may have on the economy.

“Many student loan borrowers are unable to find affordable repayment options on their private student loans, and this can have a broader impact on the economy if they’re devoting a large portion of their income to student loan repayment rather than for retirement or for a down payment on a home,” said Rohit Chopra, student loan ombudsman for the CFPB.

Debt collectors are also reaping benefits from the student loan industry.

Some student advocacy groups have raised concerns over lenders who double as debt collectors. It’s more profitable for them if students default—creating an unfair situation for students.

“The more penalties someone accrues, the more private equity you can make,” Van Ostern said.

Some borrowers have both federal and private loans. That’s a profitable situation for loan servicers, because the government treats them as separate entities and will pay twice to external companies to service them.

Student loan providers even reap profits from credit and debit cards on college campuses.

Some groups take issue with Sallie Mae offering debit cards to students on campus. “This seems like a university backing of this corporation,” said Chris Hicks, the student debt campaign organizer for Jobs With Justice.

Sallie Mae remains a trusted source for many Americans for loans—even some who are unaware that they no longer provide federal loans.

Hicks said that when he graduated from college in 2010, his mother finished paying off her own Sallie Mae loans that same year.

“She told me, ‘Chris be smart—take out a government loan,” Hicks said, and she suggested Sallie Mae, completely unaware that Sallie Mae was no longer providing government loans.

His mother ended up taking out credit cards to pay for his tuition.

Correction: The CFPB is a government agency and has not commented on federal government profits from student loans.

Article source: Article Source

The post Who makes money off your student loans? You might be surprised appeared first on .

The Republican-backed bill would allow students to dodge a scheduled rate hike for students with new subsidized Stafford loans next month, but rates could rise in coming years. Democrats largely opposed the measure — which they branded the “Making College More Expensive Act” — while the Republican chairman of the Education Committee labeled the legislation a starting point for negotiations with the Senate and White House.

“The American people sent us here to tackle tough issues, not kick the can down the road. The time to act is now. Students, families and taxpayers cannot afford further delay,” House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline said after the vote.

Interest rates on new subsidized Stafford loans are set to double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, on July 1. Lawmakers from both parties say they want to avoid the increase but were divided on how.

Some Democrats are seeking a two-year extension of the current rates until Congress takes up a higher education bill later. Republicans have rejected that proposal — expected to cost taxpayers $9 billion — as costly and irresponsible.

The House measure passed by a vote of 221-198. Eight Republicans and four Democrats broke from their party.

“It kind of goes without saying that you’re going to be paying on your student loans for quite a while,” said Ron Burruss, who will be a junior at Kentucky’s University of Louisville in the autumn.

By some counts, student loan debt has topped $1 trillion and surpasses credit card debt in size. Only mortgage debt is larger.

Under the GOP proposal, student loans would be reset every year, pegged to 10-year Treasury notes with added percentage points. For instance, students who receive subsidized or unsubsidized Stafford student loans would pay the Treasury rate, plus 2.5 percentage points starting for loans issued after July 1.

Current subsidized Stafford loans are offered at a fixed 3.4 percent rate and unsubsidized Stafford loans are offered at 6.8 percent. The interest rate on loans to parents and graduate students is 7.9 percent.

Using Congressional Budget Office projections, the GOP plan would translate to a 5 percent interest rate on all Stafford loans in 2014, but the rate would climb to 7.7 percent for loans in 2023.

“We’re ripping off kids,” said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt.

Stafford loan rates would be capped at 8.5 percent, while loans for parents and graduate students would have a 10.5 percent ceiling under the GOP plan.

In his budget proposal, Obama included flexible rate student loan rates pegged to 10-year Treasury bills. The president did not limit interest rates but included a smaller added interest rate. His plan also expanded income-based repayment options and loan forgiveness.

Even so, many students said they were frustrated by the current rates.

“It’s ridiculous that students are being charged 6.8 percent interest, when you can get a mortgage on a house for 3.5 percent,” said Zach Nostdal, a 28-year-old graduate student at Seattle’s University of Washington.

Jalon Alexander, president of the Penn State Council of Commonwealth Student Governments, said the legislative fight in Congress is also taking place in numerous states.

Alexander, a junior political science major from Philadelphia, said, “$9 billion to extend interest rates at the current level in the long run would be very beneficial. It would save students around the country more money than doubling the rate and potentially making school unfeasible for a lot of individuals.”

The House proposal faces a steep climb in the Senate despite some similarities to the White House’s offer.

“The Senate is not going to pick this up,” said Rep. Caroline McCarthy, D-N.Y.

The Senate planned to take up its own measure after it returns from Memorial Day holiday. Even then, it’s not clear lawmakers will be able to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions before the July 1 deadline.

“We are focused on making college more affordable while they seem focused on making it more expensive,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “The bill they passed today fails the first test of any policy: do no harm. It’s worse for students than if the rate doubles.”

Students who max out their subsidized Stafford loans over four years would pay $8,331 in interest payments under the Republican bill, and $3,450 if rates were kept at 3.4 percent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Services. If rates were allowed to double in July, that amount would be $7,284 over the typical 10-year window to repay the maximum $19,000.

___

Associated Press writer Bruce Schreiner in Louisville, Ky., Donna Blankinship in Seattle and Genaro Armas in State College, Pa., contributed to this report.

___

Follow Philip Elliott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/philip_elliott

Article source: Article Source

The post House backs variable rate student loans appeared first on .

Donte Newsome was shot outside a Huntington nightclub in 2008. A Charleston man was convicted in 2010 of voluntary manslaughter and other charges in the shooting and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

After Newsome’s death, his mother, Angela Y. Smith, filed for compensation for medical expenses, funeral and burial costs, and the unpaid student loans from the West Virginia Crime Victims Compensation Fund.

Although she received money for medical expenses and funeral costs, the fund did not give her anything to help pay off her dead son’s student loans. The state Court of Claims denied her request, as well, and she appealed the decision to the Supreme Court last year.

Smith’s lawyer, Mark McMillian of Charleston, argued that unpaid student loans are an “economic loss” that the West Virginia Crime Victims Compensation Fund usually reimburses. They argued that unpaid student loans fell under the “lost scholarship” category of “economic loss,” which includes “other monetary scholastic assistance” listed in West Virginia law.

Smith argued that the term “lost scholarship” is vague and that the Legislature probably intended “lost scholarship” to encompass all forms of financial assistance, including student loans.

The Court of Claims had argued that the statue for “other monetary scholastic assistance” included merit-based academic or athletic scholarships, but not student loans, because they include a contractual obligation to repay a debt.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument and cited Marshall’s and West Virginia University’s financial aid websites as including student loans as part of financial aid packages.

“In the context of financial aid for college, the general and ordinary meaning of ‘monetary scholastic assistance’ encompasses student loans,” Justice Allen Loughry wrote in the decision.

However, Loughry wrote, the Crime Victims Compensation Fund must only compensate economic loss when the victim has been unable to receive or use the lost scholarship because of an injury.

Newsome already had benefited from the educational opportunities provided by the student loans, the justices decided, so Smith could not claim the unpaid student loans as “lost scholarship” subject to reimbursement.

Reach Laura Reston at laura.res…@wvgazette.com or 304-348-5100.

Article source: Article Source

The post Justices: Mother of slain MU player cant get crime fund money to pay his college loans appeared first on .

The National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization was approved last year. Landrieu, D-La., had an amendment that was defeated that would have stalled premium increases of 20 percent or more annually for some residents in the program.

The new Strengthen, Modernize and Reform The National Flood Insurance Program Act would indefinitely delay the hikes until six months after Congress receives an affordability study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The bill also protects properties that are currently “grandfathered.”

Landrieu tells The Advocate she has not yet decided on how she will try to move the bill forward.

“It could be standalone. It could be amended onto another bill,” she said. “It could be part of the appropriations process, of which I’d have a good bit of influence on since I chair the committee.”

Landrieu chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA’s funding.

The insurance fear is that proposed flood maps will cost Louisiana residents and business owners a lot more in the congressional effort to make the flood insurance program more self-sustainable.

The proposed flood maps are still under federal review but more parts of the state’s coast are becoming high-risk velocity zones, or V-zones, where insurance rates increase more. The program also is going to start phasing out “grandfathered” rates next year.

The NFIP allows homeowners and businesses in flood zones that have trouble getting private insurance to obtain policies backed by the federal government.

Nearly 500,000 people in Louisiana participate in the NFIP. The program has been in financial distress with a loss of more than $20 billion, largely due to payments made after hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

Landrieu said balances must be found to ensure the insurance is “affordable, accessible and self-sustainable.”

Article source: Article Source

The post Louisiana’s Sen. Landrieu Seeks to Delay Flood Insurance Increases appeared first on .

The government has more than $11 billion in its main disaster relief fund. Recovery costs in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore are expected to be a relatively small fraction of that amount. The devastating 2011 tornado that wiped out much of Joplin, Mo., for instance, required about $750 million in federal disaster aid.

Top lawmakers on Capitol Hill agreed that there’s no immediate need for additional disaster aid.

“We’ll do what we have to do, but we have a pretty hefty amount of money in the disaster relief fund,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. “We’re not faced with an immediate need for a supplemental,” agreed Rep. David Price, D-N.C., top Democrat on the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Nonetheless, some news outlets and those on social networks like Twitter rushed to speculate that Oklahoma politicians would face political problems in obtaining aid for their state – or accusations of hypocrisy for seeking such aid after voting against legislation in January to help Democratic-leaning Eastern states recover from Superstorm Sandy.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for instance, was quoted as saying he thought any aid for Oklahoma should be financed with cuts elsewhere in the budget. He and most other Oklahoma Republicans voted against January’s disaster relief bill, though Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., whose home is very close to the Oklahoma disaster site, voted for it.

Spokesman John Hart says it’s a position Coburn has consistently held regarding federal spending on disasters dating to the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City.

A House panel is slated Wednesday to approve a homeland security funding bill making a routine $6.2 billion infusion into the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund, which finances immediate recovery efforts like debris removal and temporary housing for people displaced by the storm.

Reforms put in place in 2011 gave FEMA a more predictable stream of disaster aid and the agency got additional funding from two Sandy relief bills in December and January. The relatively large FEMA balance likely means that Republicans will be spared from an internal battle over whether further aid needs to be “paid for” with cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

Later, the government money is likely to help rebuild two schools and the city’s hospital, along with other public infrastructure damaged by the tornado.

Article source: Article Source

The post No New Federal Funds Needed for Oklahoma Tornado Recovery appeared first on .

The report from the agency’s Dodge City office follows a survey of the tornado’s path Saturday night in Pawnee County.

An EF4 is the second-strongest on the scale used to measure the strength of tornadoes.

No injuries occurred, but one farmhouse lost most of its roof and some walls and four others sustained lesser damage as the tornado traveled from six miles southwest of Rozel to about one mile west of the small town. The NWS says the tornado then turned to the northwest and dissipated about three miles northwest of town.

The tornado measured 1,100 yards across at its maximum width.

Article source: Article Source

The post Weather Service: Kansas Weekend Tornado Was an EF4 appeared first on .

“We are waiting for the Department of Financial Services to issue a hearing notice and at that point we will post the filing online,” said Ziv Kimmel, vice president and chief actuary at the NYCIRB. The Department of Financial Services is required to hold a public hearing when a request is made for a workers’ comp loss costs hike of at least 7 percent.

Kimmel said that while more detailed information on the filing won’t be available until a hearing is scheduled, he commented that 4.5 percent of the requested increase is attributable to the expected closing of the reopened case fund.

In New York, cases that reopen three years after an insurer made what it thought was final payment (and seven years after the original accident) can be turned over to a reopened case fund. Employers pay an assessment that covers these claims. But the state plans to close the fund on Jan. 1, 2014, as part of the state’s workers’ comp reform effort.

Last year, the Department of Financial Service turned down NYCIRB’s request for an 11.5 percent hike in workers’ comp loss costs after holding a hearing on June 25, 2012. In 2011, the department had approved a 9.1 percent increase in workers’ comp loss costs.

Article source: Article Source

The post N.Y. Compensation Insurance Rating Board Seeks 16.9% Hike in WC Loss Costs appeared first on .

A former Proskauer Rose chief financial officer who sued the firm in 2011 alleging that various forms of discrimination led to her termination has whittled the claims contained in her initial suit to a single allegation: that the firm forced her out over a medical leave she took in 2008 after being diagnosed with breast cancer.

Elly Rosenthal, who worked in Proskauer’s finance department for more than 18 years, sued her former employer for $10 million in October 2011, seven months after she was fired. At the time, Rosenthal claimed she was a victim of age, gender, and disability-related discrimination.

Earlier this year, Rosenthal, 59, amended her complaint to focus exclusively on the disability claim, which alleges that “she was marginalized by superiors and co-workers and then terminated” after taking a three-month medical leave in 2008 in order to recover from treatment for cancer, including two rounds of surgery.

Proskauer representatives have called Rosenthal’s suit “meritless” and deny discriminating against her. The firm faces a May 30 deadline to respond to Rosenthal’s amended complaint. A firm spokeswoman declined to comment Thursday.

Rosenthal’s lawyers at employment firm Sanford Heisler did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday about why Rosenthal narrowed her allegations. Her lawyer, David Sanford, told The Am Law Daily in 2011 that he expected to find evidence of gender and age discrimination during the discovery process that would show people in similar circumstances at the firm who are male or younger “have not been treated in similar ways.”

Rosenthal joined the firm as director of finance in 1992 following two decades of work as an accountant at law firms, including Stroock Stroock Lavan and now-defunct Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson Casey, and at accounting firm KPMG. She became Proskauer’s chief financial officer in 2005.

The trouble started, Rosenthal alleges in her complaint, even before she returned from medical leave—despite assurances from her boss, Proskauer chief operating officer Art Gurwitz that “there will always be a place for you” at Proskauer.

At a meeting on June 16, 2008, a month before Rosenthal was scheduled to return to work, Gurwitz told her he planned to reorganize the firm’s administrative staff, according to the complaint. “Interested in challenging herself after many years in the same position,” Rosenthal told Gurwitz “that she would be willing to consider an altered or new role at Proskauer,” the complaint states.

As part of that reorganization, Rosenthal was given the newly created title of chief administrative financial officer, a position that ranked below that of the firm’s new CFO, Jim Barbaria. Rosenthal alleges that Barbaria, who had previously been manager of financial analytics, was less qualified than her for the CFO job because he was not a certified public accountant and had never been the head of a finance department.

Rosenthal says in her complaint that at a meeting that December she agreed to take a 10 percent pay cut, to $423,000, because she was working less than five days a week after returning from medical leave. (Her salary ultimately dropped to $420,000.) During the same meeting, she alleges, Gurwitz told her she would not receive a bonus or merit increase as a way “of offsetting the three months of paid medical leave.”

In a 2009 performance evaluation, Rosenthal received mixed reviews from Gurwitz, according to the complaint. While being told that her history with Proskauer made her a good fit for her new job, Gurwitz also said he suspected “‘it is difficult to now be in a new management role at a time when the industry is changing—rapidly—and as a firm we are modifying/integrating/enhancing/eliminating’” many procedures and processes to which Rosenthal was accustomed, the complaint says, quoting from a written review that Proskauer has verified in court filings as accurate.

Following that review, Rosenthal alleges, rather than help her adapt to her new role, Gurwitz, Barbaria, and others “orchestrated a concerted campaign to undermine Ms. Rosenthal’s authority.” For example, Rosenthal says, when Proskauer moved its new midtown Manhattan headquarters at 11 Times Square in 2011, the firm exiled her to an office eight blocks away at 2 Penn Plaza.

Rosenthal says she received an email on March 11, 2011, asking her to meet with Gurwitz the following day. At that meeting, Gurwitz, with New York managing partner Bruce Lieb present, told her there was “no role” for her at Proskauer and that she was being terminated. The complaint states that Gurwitz gave her three days to clear out her office.

“Proskauer’s abrupt dismissal of Ms. Rosenthal, without warning of any kind, despite her nearly two decades of loyal service to the Firm, constitutes malicious or recklessly indifferent treatment,” the complaint states.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Article source: Article Source

The post Ex-Proskauer CFO Zeroes in on Cancer as Cause of Firing appeared first on .

Apax Partners is the latest private equity firm to turn to a shopping mall stalwart for a major purchase.

Warrendale, Pennsylvania–based clothing company rue21, which sells what it describes as affordable teen fashions, said Thursday that it has agreed to sell itself to Apax for $1.1 billion in cash. (Apax is a part owner of ALM Media, parent company and publisher of The Am Law Daily.) The clothing company operates 932 stores in 47 states.

The deal follows investment firm TowerBrook Capital Partners’s $835 million acquisition of premium jeans maker True Religion Apparel earlier this month and Apollo Management’s announcement of a prospective IPO for women’s accessories retailer Claire’s.

Apax has agreed to pay $42 in cash for each rue21 share—a 23 percent over the clothing company’s Wednesday closing price. The agreement calls for a special committee of rue21′s board to conduct a 40-day “go-shop” process, during which the company can consider alternative offers. One of rue21′s largest shareholders with a 30 percent stake, buyout fund SKM II—which is affiliated with Apax—has agreed to vote its shares in favor of the sale to Apax. If rue21 reaches an agreement on a superior deal with an alternate bidder, SKM II has also agreed to vote in favor of that transaction.

The deal, which is expected to close before the end of the year, is subject to approval by a majority of rue21 shareholders that are not affiliated with SKM II funds.

Simpson Thacher Bartlett and Delaware firm Richards, Layton Finger are advising Apax on the purchase. Simpson Thacher corporate partner Ryerson Symons—named an Am Law Daily “Dealmaker of the Week” in 2011 for his work advising a consortium that included Apax and other investors on the $6.3 billion acquisition of medical device company Kinetic Conceptsis—is leading his firm’s team, which also includes banking partners Brian Steinhardt, capital markets partner Ken Wallach, compensation and benefits partner Brian Robbins, IP partner Lori Lesser, and tax partner Gary Mandel. Simpson Thacher also represented Apax last year on its $2.1 billion purchase of France Telecom’s Orange Switzerland mobile phone business.

Information about the Richards Layton lawyers working on the deal was not immediately available.

Apax’s general counsel is Simon Cresswell, a former Davis Polk Wardwell attorney.

For its part, the special committee of rue21′s board has turned to attorneys at Kirkland Ellis and Delaware firm Potter Anderson Corroon for its sale to Apax. Kirkland’s New York–based team includes corporate partners David Fox and David Feirstein, as well as debt finance partner Ashley Gregory and corporate associate Richard Brand.

Kirkland previously advised rue21 on its 2009 IPO, which raised $129 million.

Corporate partner Michael Tumas is leading the Potter Anderson team, with assistance from corporate associate Roxanne Houtman. Stacy Siegal is rue21′s chief legal and administrative officer.

Weil, Gotshal Manges MA partners Michael Aiello and Jaclyn Cohen are representing Perella Weinberg in its role as financial adviser to rue21′s special committee. Meanwhile, Ropes Gray is advising the SKM II funds, led by MA partner Daniel Evans and litigation partner Christopher Green, as well as corporate associate Michael Roh.

The rue21 deal comes a day after it was announced that Simpson Thacher is advising Del Monte Corporation in its acquisition of Natural Balance Pet Foods—the pet food maker cofounded in 1989 by actor Dick Van Patten, who is probably best known for playing Tom Bradford on the ABC drama Eight is Enough. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Reed Smith is advising Natural Balance.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Article source: Article Source

The post Rue21 Sale Offers Retail Therapy for Three Am Law Firms appeared first on .

A quick look at recent law school news:

Law school applications are on the ascent—though they are actually down. The Faculty Lounge blog has good news for anxious law school administrators: Applications are up. Sort of. . .

Click here to continue.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Article source: Article Source

The post The Careerist: Law School Applications Are Up …And Down appeared first on .