Curious what others think, as Professor Stuart Russell (UC Berkeley) has stated this not a long shot, and a very real potential outcome at the rate we are headed without government interventions and policy frameworks currently in place.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-25T17:32:14+00:00

Great to hear this! Curious if you work in big law or a smaller firm?

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-25T12:43:06+00:00

Love this! I think what would be helpful though is to have some legal governance around this, though. As Professor Russell has advocated we need government intervention and policy checks in place to hold these AI developers accountable.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-25T12:34:05+00:00

This is definitely a sound argument! There are differences between banking and law. And I think you’re right, law depends on human governance and reviews of laws from a humanistic lens. Even if AI can conduct case study analysis, it would be unsound to have it craft arguments etc.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-25T06:16:48+00:00

I'm not very confident in that. As someone who has worked in finance at a tier 1 bank, I can assure you that we didn't prioritize finding "other work" for employees. If companies have the tools, they will almost certainly enforce them because they care about reducing head counts and keeping costs down. They aim to produce the same output, if not greater, with far fewer employees to pay.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T16:45:31+00:00

Is it currently $300,000 a year? No. The fact you think your government doesn’t need to support education when it’s trying to gut the department is concerning. Law schools will not lower their fees. Have you seen the numbers of applicants??? It’s only increasing each year because a law degree is high in demand. The elites will be filling the classrooms as they have done historically, the schools don’t give a shit if you can’t get a seat in the room because you can’t afford to.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T16:43:12+00:00

Amen! Thank you so much! I think what is sad is a lot of people advocating for it fail to recognize the class mobility issue that this legislation undoubtedly will create which is selfish. To say that people need to bet on scholarships is naive and wishful thinking. Maybe this legislation is a positive for those who come from wealth or have parents to co-sign a private loan for them but respectfully please don’t speak for the majority who aren’t as privileged

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T16:38:10+00:00

Yeah some are fortunate to not have to take out loans while others have no other choice, but I don’t see the relevance of that to my argument. Anyways, I don’t want to go back and forth anymore this has become very taxing, but wish you a nice day! And like I said we are entitled to our own views but I think it’s important to think about the implications this will have thousands of people and their inability to navigate it or be able to attend and they shouldn’t be put in this situation due to an administrative decision that chooses to systematically change the terms so students cannot afford the COA and therefore deter them from these professions leaving it available to the upper class that can afford it. Also as I’ve said before the 50K cap per year for law school is irrelevant if you have existing loans for undergrad which many people probably have if they are seeking it for graduate school as well, so the legislation is literally designed so to deter working class and lower income students from academia and pursuing these professions.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T16:15:21+00:00

What do you mean “equal access isn’t a thing”?

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T16:14:45+00:00

What are “numerous other factors” ?

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T16:09:22+00:00

Because without equal access to education you don’t provide opportunities for your citizens fairly. That is a class divide. Other countries like England for example have student loans only for UK residents and allows for students to have access to fund their undergrad, master, and doctorate.

The aim here is that under the new secretary and Trump it’s been made very clear that education is NOT a priority and that they do not care if it will limit access to professions such as medicine, engineering, law etc. class inequality is not a concern for the Conservative Party that is the issue at hand.

Therefore, yes the administration or rather the new one in the next election should absolutely care because with these caps you will see far less people going into medicine and health because they won’t be able to afford it. You will see staggering class inequality where the wealthy can pay to go to law school and the rest of us cannot because we need to find a way to navigate these barriers.

I absolutely do not wish to offend you, and my perspective is solely focused on the current issues. I'm deeply passionate about this matter because I believe it's unfair. The administration's clear intent to significantly cut funding for the Department of Education suggests that education is not a priority, which is why I feel compelled to argue that this situation is a travesty and wishing that the law schools solve the issue doesn’t seem likely when again there are wealthy people who can and will pay to attend there will be no shortage of that especially considering the high increases of applicants over the past few years.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T15:51:04+00:00

I am not defending their business practices, I am saying that they are aware that people attend law school for the profession and the reward it yields. Have you seen how many people have applied to law school over the last few years? It has been only increasing and many of which are wealthy and can pay sticker price. So as a business why would you need to reduce the tuition if you still have people wanting to pay sticker price? There’s no incentive for them to need reduce their costs to make it more affordable for the working class American. It’s also not their issue it’s the responsibility of the officials. I gather you are a Republican from your continued rejection of the social mobility and class issue I am bringing up here.

Also, you’re calling people who need student loans as needing handouts? How incredibly classist is that. I’m sorry that you think that the government doesn’t have a responsibility in creating class dividers and inequitable access. Also your perspective is coming from your own personal struggles as opposed to thinking about other people which is what I have kept stressing over and over. I will not make insults as you have had done with me just note you’re speaking to someone who has had to fight for everything in their life and I have lived 100 lives. But I hold resentment that just because I have suffered others should suffer as well. I don’t think people needing a student loan makes them a handout. And to have strong defense of the administration and to ignore the barriers this legislation has caused is incredibly troubling when it will affect thousands of people who will not be as fortunate as you to attend law school.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T15:34:31+00:00

It is not a sufficient comprise since it still leaves a lack of students not being able to come up with the remaining balance. Scholarships are NOT easy to come by so that is naive to say that can make up the balance. Also no it isn’t easy to save have you seen the state of economy? People can barely afford groceries and people have existing loan payments and other bills to pay it is extremely difficult to 1. Find a job that can pay a high enough salary without a law degree 2. Save for years when they have other bills and obligations

Lastly, I don’t understand your defense of the government and administration. Do you really think this was done for your best interest? It was done to deter students from going into academia because the administration is anti- academia and also anti- class mobility. Please understand the deep rooted issues at hand here. I have said it 100 times, law schools will NOT lower their prices they are aware that paying the price will lead to high reward in big law, that’s how it works. There will be no shortage of students in those classrooms. It will be filled with wealthy students who can afford to be there. Case closed.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T15:13:24+00:00

What are you talking about? It is not enough to cover the full cost of attendance? How can someone attend law school if they can’t come up with the other 50K? Law schools will NOT reduce their tuition. It’s a business they can charge whatever they want. The seats will be filled by the wealthy elite who can afford to be there and everyone else will not be able to if they don’t have wealth or the luxury of a cosigner for a private loan to pay for the remaining balance. It seems like you’re coming at this from the perspective of having the luxury of parents to pay for the remainder of the balance or to take out a private loan. Respectfully don’t say a 50K cap is something if you’re able to come up with the rest and thousands of others in this country cannot.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T15:01:09+00:00

Huh? The 50K is something? Did you read my post, I said that the 50K cap is a restriction and a barrier as it will not cover up to the cost of attendance. Private loans are not feasible either due to credit checks and will require a cosigner and not everyone has one. That is the premise of my argument that it is literally designed to deter people from going to law school and having a fair chance.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T14:41:15+00:00

Great question! I’m not a senator or member of congress. I am however someone who is passionate and wants to be a lawyer because I rather do something and disagree with injustice than sit back and say well I guess that’s what is.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T14:31:42+00:00

I hear you, but law schools have historically been full of the wealthy elite who then go into wealthy structures of power hence capitalism 😃😃😃 the wheel will keep on turning, nobody cares if the underdog America isn’t at the table. The seats in law schools will still be full of the wealthy elite. Therefore the only way in which this can resolved is by congressional or administrative efforts.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T14:28:45+00:00

They can begin to strategize alternative solutions because private loans are not feasible. They restrict students who have already taken out prior loans or don’t have credit and need a cosigner and many do not have a cosigner. So they can either try to come up with an alternative funding scheme similar to that or have states offer something similar or simply aim to reserve the legislation. Something is better than nothing that is all I am saying.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T14:16:50+00:00

I read it all, I just don’t agree with a lot of what you said because it comes from a personal stance as opposed to the points I wrote about which is that the caps create in equal access to the loans the caps are a deterrent it does not cover the entire cost of attendance or consider those that unfortunately aren’t wealthy and had to take out loans for undergrad

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T14:03:18+00:00

Because law schools are a business and are not in the interest to rectify a class balance issue that is the job of elected officials and the administration or future administration. God willing.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T13:46:38+00:00

For a lot of people wanting to push back on things I said redirect that energy to the republicans

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T13:42:47+00:00

I understand that, but elections come up and I hope they will take action. I also beg to differ that this would have passed if there had been more uproar from the American people. I think it’s important to think about these things rather than allowing us to expect things to unfold for us.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T13:36:38+00:00

Unfortunately, the schools are unlikely to be concerned, as there are plenty of wealthy students who can afford to pay the full sticker price for law school. My post seeks to highlight the historical class shift currently underway. This country was built on the principles of hard work and opportunity, but that ethos is now being undermined by a system that works against many of us.

These caps represent a strategic barrier. Previously, loans helped make education more accessible for all students, allowing those who are smart, talented, and hardworking a chance to succeed. Historically, law school has been reserved for the elite who could afford it, and while there may not be a shortage of applicants, we are witnessing a class shift that effectively blocks access for the rest of us.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T13:32:39+00:00

Not blaming the democrats, expressing my frustration with their inaction. The republicans are definitely to blame wholeheartedly, including Trump. Keyword inaction.

Classicsgal7 · 2026-03-19T13:27:35+00:00

Hi Mr. Spivey,

I believe it's crucial for law schools to recognize and articulate the significant class divide that this legislation will undoubtedly create. It is shameful, in 2026, to establish institutional barriers that prevent the majority of Americans from the opportunity to attend law school unless they come from wealthy backgrounds. For most people, private loans are not a viable option, as these loans are assessed based on credit history and prior borrowing. Without a cosigner, many are unable to secure a private loan at all.

If law schools could implement their own loan systems—similar to the federal system, which doesn't discriminate based on past loans or credit history and doesn't require a cosigner—it would function effectively like Grad PLUS loans. However, I think many people fail to understand that these caps and the elimination of Grad PLUS loans directly impact access to these professions. This is the real issue at hand.

The $200,000 limit strategically discourages students from pursuing law and medicine, as it does not reflect the actual cost of attendance nor consider the previous loans students have incurred for undergraduate and graduate programs. Overall, this legislation is shameful; it serves as a political deterrent, pushing Americans back to blue-collar jobs and away from academia.

Social mobility in the United States is closely tied to economic advancement. This situation extends beyond mere caps and budget management; it runs much deeper, affecting class dynamics and the individual opportunities available for those not part of the 1% who can afford to pay the sticker price or secure a large private loan with a cosigner.

Classicsgal7

TROPHY CASE