In a way, this is an obligatory New Years Eve post, but it's also something I've been thinking about a lot lately. As 2010 draws to end, I've been hearing a number of people talking about goals - and not just abstract goals that they hope to one day accomplish, but rather sitting down at the beginning of a new year and putting on paper what you want to do and/or how you want to feel a year from now.
Christmas is always a good benchmark for me. It's easy to think back to where I was last Christmas, what I was feeling, and whether this year is different at all. But I've never actually done the prospective goal-setting exercise, which is interesting for me because I'm very goal-oriented, and I love lists. So this year, I have committed to putting together a list of goals for 2011. One immediately comes to mind, and I don't anticipate many of my readers will be surprised to hear it: A diet... for my wallet.
I have struggled with being responsible with my money for pretty much my entire life. I think it's a sense of entitlement combined with how I always feel like "I can make it work." I am notorious for trying to get too much done in too little time (as we speak, it's 10 am, and I'm supposed to pick up a friend at 10:30. I'm in pajamas on the couch with my oatmeal, and there's a foot of snow on the ground, and the roads are terrible. I should be leaving right now, but instead, I tell myself that I have time to finish this blog post, and I'll just get ready really quickly). In a way, it's the same with money. If I need something (I'm aware that "need" is a pretty ridiculous word to use here, and part of my goal is going to be distinguishing between "need" and "want," as basic as that sounds...) I usually buy it and tell myself that I'll just skimp for the rest of the month.
This year, my goal is to STICK TO MY BUDGET. And friends, let me tell you... it's a very VERY tight budget, but I'm kind of excited by the challenge. I have never felt in control of my finances, and with my extreme type-A personality, it has always been difficult for me to admit that. So, this year I am going to work extremely hard to actually do it (which also takes into account a small... very small....savings program).
There are many parts of my personality that I'm going to have to be aware of and fight against in this endeavor: I am not going to do things I can't afford. I am going to learn to say no, even when I know it's going to disappoint people. I am going to stop being hostess extraordinaire and accept that people will be fine just drinking wine. And along with that "saying no" goal, I am not going to let people pay for me just so I can go with. This is because one of two things will happen: (1) I won't be able to repay it, and I will feel guilty about it until I do, or (2) I will get wherever we decided to go and insist on picking up the tab for drinks to combat my guiltiness over accepting "charity."
A lot of this is about accepting my circumstances... which, honestly, aren't too bad of circumstances. I love my house. I love my car. I love my dog. I love my friends. I love running. I love writing. I love SVU reruns. I love wine at home with the girls. I love finding great deals. I love hunting for treasures at thrift stores. It's going to be OK... I just need to get it all under control.
A second, more non-tangible, goal also comes to mind immediately. I need to get over myself. I have been feeling a pull to start giving back somehow - to commit to community involvement and recognize that I am part of something much greater. Because it really REALLY is time for me to get ready and pick up my friend, I am going to end here. But because I clearly can't NOT (yes, an obvious double-negative) tell you about how my goal-achieving process is going, anticipate a few blog posts about my (hopefully) progress in 2011.
Here's to a happy happy New Year! Cheers!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Crippling Effect
It's been awhile since I ranted about the student loan crisis, and I've been generally feeling more accepting and at peace with my current situation...
...Until last week when CNBC aired a special College Debt Crisis and compared the state of the student loan economy to the mortgage crisis. I thought it was really well done and highlighted a number of the comments I've been making for a year now. For example, the way people just shrugged when I said I was taking on A LOT of debt to go to a private law school and responded "yeah, but you'll be a lawyer, so who cares." Or how the financial aid office never once told me the actual dollar value of the money I was taking out or what my monthly payments would look like upon graduation, but rather told me to sign on the dotted line and the money was deposited in my account. The CNBC special also called out the universities that are simply adding law schools as a way to make money. Law schools don't require the infrastructure (translation: cost) of medical schools or nursing schools, yet they allow for exorbitant tuition, thereby making a nice little profit off those still wanting to become lawyers in a saturated market. Furthermore, class sizes are steadily increasing, churning out more lawyers than the world knows what to do with.
I do want to make one thing clear. I fully recognize that my financial situation is, in a lot of ways, my own fault. Much like people who took out mortgages their salaries could not support, I think students have a responsibility to "stay within their means." Convinced I wanted to be a lawyer, I, for one, should NOT have gone to PRIVATE school, but rather attended the University of Wisconsin - a public school where I had in-state tuition. For this reason, I can appreciate that many people respond to this student loan crisis (and MY student loan crisis) less than sympathetically.
I have read a number of comments to articles on this topic by angry people spewing how they refuse to feel sorry for lawyers who made their beds and now are forced to lie in them. However... there is (at least one) very big difference between borrowers who bite off mortgages that are more than they can chew, and students who opt to take on the debt associated with a professional degree: A degree comes with a certain promise of success - a promise of a financial future that is able to withstand the debt acquired. No mortgage broker (no matter HOW corrupt the whole industry may be) tells a borrower that by taking a leap of faith and committing to a huge mortgage now, it will put him in a position to be able to not only pay off his mortgage on THAT house, but also buy a much larger house in the future. With student loans, the borrower is trusting that the education associated with the cost will pay for itself. Put simply, the reason the mortgage crisis is so appalling is that mortgage brokers took a retrospective look at a person's history and at his current situation and advised him that he could take on a level of debt that was impossible to maintain. Student loans lenders, on the other hand, look prospectively at the education to be acquired and then loan a large amount of money. However, what in the past seemed like hedging a safe bet on both sides of the transaction has suddenly become an extremely risky investment. And frankly, the Higher Education Act of 1997 screwed us all.
It's funny - I started this blog post angry at law schools for charging ME such a high tuition and angry with the lenders for just giving me that money, but as I wrote this, I almost had myself convinced that I made, if not the "right" decision, then at least a justified one. I suppose what angers me the most at this point (given that I've acquired the debt, I've deferred the debt, and I've accepted the fact that I will be paying for it for the rest of my life), is that people keep going to law school... in an economy where the legal market is more than saturated, and the government (and private lenders) just keep shelling out the money for what has become a very risky investment.
The CNBC special discusses the inflated (deflated?) statistics on student loan defaults. Currently, the percentage of defaults seems pretty low. However, what the number fails to take into account is the amount of people (present company included) who have put their loans into deferment and/or forbearance instead of defaulting on them. As reported by Student Loan Justice, a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing awareness about the student loan crisis:
We are confident that the true default rate across all federal student loans is between 25 and 33 percent (perhaps even greater)- clearly higher than described in the Chronicle article, and higher even than the default rate for sub-prime home loans, payday loans, credit cards, or any other lending instrument in this country. Students and their parents deserve to know this before making college attendance and financing decisions. The failure of government to warn citizens about this alarming default rate over the past decade has caused immeasurable harm. We hope the media will continue to pursue this line of investigation.
On both the public and the private side, this is a very big deal, but given that the federal government allows students to defer their loans (while still accruing interest) for up to three years (and thank God they do, otherwise yours truly would be shacked up with Mom and Pops), there is no way the default percentage accurately portrays the realistic number of people who simply cannot make their monthly minimum payments. What's worse, is law schools rely on this deflated statistic as justification for increasing class sizes and tuition, with the mentality being "Very few people can't pay back their loans after they graduate, so you will be fine taking on $200,000 to become a lawyer..." ...in a saturated legal market that can't actually afford to pay you anywhere close to the amount to support your investment.
Along these same lines, universities are tricking new students into thinking they are essentially guaranteed jobs after law school. There has been a great deal of outcry on this particular topic, but for those who don't know about it, law schools are allowed to consider ANY employment when calculating its percentage of graduates who find jobs after graduation. This means I could drive a bus or work at Starbucks (which, for the record, were both options I seriously considered post-graduation from law school. Starbucks for the health benefits and driving a bus to be considered a "public employee" and have my loans forgiven after ten years of public service), and the University of Denver would mark me down in the "employed" category and include me in the inflated statistic presented to prospective students to show that their law school results in employment, thereby justifying the cost of tuition.
I encourage anyone in my boat ...Actually the boat sank, so I mean anyone else who is frantically trying to keep their heads above water) to look into Student Loan Justice. If nothing else, it helps to know we are not alone.
...Until last week when CNBC aired a special College Debt Crisis and compared the state of the student loan economy to the mortgage crisis. I thought it was really well done and highlighted a number of the comments I've been making for a year now. For example, the way people just shrugged when I said I was taking on A LOT of debt to go to a private law school and responded "yeah, but you'll be a lawyer, so who cares." Or how the financial aid office never once told me the actual dollar value of the money I was taking out or what my monthly payments would look like upon graduation, but rather told me to sign on the dotted line and the money was deposited in my account. The CNBC special also called out the universities that are simply adding law schools as a way to make money. Law schools don't require the infrastructure (translation: cost) of medical schools or nursing schools, yet they allow for exorbitant tuition, thereby making a nice little profit off those still wanting to become lawyers in a saturated market. Furthermore, class sizes are steadily increasing, churning out more lawyers than the world knows what to do with.
I do want to make one thing clear. I fully recognize that my financial situation is, in a lot of ways, my own fault. Much like people who took out mortgages their salaries could not support, I think students have a responsibility to "stay within their means." Convinced I wanted to be a lawyer, I, for one, should NOT have gone to PRIVATE school, but rather attended the University of Wisconsin - a public school where I had in-state tuition. For this reason, I can appreciate that many people respond to this student loan crisis (and MY student loan crisis) less than sympathetically.
I have read a number of comments to articles on this topic by angry people spewing how they refuse to feel sorry for lawyers who made their beds and now are forced to lie in them. However... there is (at least one) very big difference between borrowers who bite off mortgages that are more than they can chew, and students who opt to take on the debt associated with a professional degree: A degree comes with a certain promise of success - a promise of a financial future that is able to withstand the debt acquired. No mortgage broker (no matter HOW corrupt the whole industry may be) tells a borrower that by taking a leap of faith and committing to a huge mortgage now, it will put him in a position to be able to not only pay off his mortgage on THAT house, but also buy a much larger house in the future. With student loans, the borrower is trusting that the education associated with the cost will pay for itself. Put simply, the reason the mortgage crisis is so appalling is that mortgage brokers took a retrospective look at a person's history and at his current situation and advised him that he could take on a level of debt that was impossible to maintain. Student loans lenders, on the other hand, look prospectively at the education to be acquired and then loan a large amount of money. However, what in the past seemed like hedging a safe bet on both sides of the transaction has suddenly become an extremely risky investment. And frankly, the Higher Education Act of 1997 screwed us all.
It's funny - I started this blog post angry at law schools for charging ME such a high tuition and angry with the lenders for just giving me that money, but as I wrote this, I almost had myself convinced that I made, if not the "right" decision, then at least a justified one. I suppose what angers me the most at this point (given that I've acquired the debt, I've deferred the debt, and I've accepted the fact that I will be paying for it for the rest of my life), is that people keep going to law school... in an economy where the legal market is more than saturated, and the government (and private lenders) just keep shelling out the money for what has become a very risky investment.
The CNBC special discusses the inflated (deflated?) statistics on student loan defaults. Currently, the percentage of defaults seems pretty low. However, what the number fails to take into account is the amount of people (present company included) who have put their loans into deferment and/or forbearance instead of defaulting on them. As reported by Student Loan Justice, a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing awareness about the student loan crisis:
We are confident that the true default rate across all federal student loans is between 25 and 33 percent (perhaps even greater)- clearly higher than described in the Chronicle article, and higher even than the default rate for sub-prime home loans, payday loans, credit cards, or any other lending instrument in this country. Students and their parents deserve to know this before making college attendance and financing decisions. The failure of government to warn citizens about this alarming default rate over the past decade has caused immeasurable harm. We hope the media will continue to pursue this line of investigation.
On both the public and the private side, this is a very big deal, but given that the federal government allows students to defer their loans (while still accruing interest) for up to three years (and thank God they do, otherwise yours truly would be shacked up with Mom and Pops), there is no way the default percentage accurately portrays the realistic number of people who simply cannot make their monthly minimum payments. What's worse, is law schools rely on this deflated statistic as justification for increasing class sizes and tuition, with the mentality being "Very few people can't pay back their loans after they graduate, so you will be fine taking on $200,000 to become a lawyer..." ...in a saturated legal market that can't actually afford to pay you anywhere close to the amount to support your investment.
Along these same lines, universities are tricking new students into thinking they are essentially guaranteed jobs after law school. There has been a great deal of outcry on this particular topic, but for those who don't know about it, law schools are allowed to consider ANY employment when calculating its percentage of graduates who find jobs after graduation. This means I could drive a bus or work at Starbucks (which, for the record, were both options I seriously considered post-graduation from law school. Starbucks for the health benefits and driving a bus to be considered a "public employee" and have my loans forgiven after ten years of public service), and the University of Denver would mark me down in the "employed" category and include me in the inflated statistic presented to prospective students to show that their law school results in employment, thereby justifying the cost of tuition.
I encourage anyone in my boat ...Actually the boat sank, so I mean anyone else who is frantically trying to keep their heads above water) to look into Student Loan Justice. If nothing else, it helps to know we are not alone.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
there's a cafe for that...
 |
| Really? |
Toyko Cat Cafe (and no, it's not a band...).
I find it funny how much the cyberworld is obsessed with cats. Seems you can find a cat doing or saying just about anything on the internet these days. Why? Is it that cat people are inherently strange and the internet gives them a forum to express their strangeness? My parents have a cat. Actually, it's my sister's cat, and I got it for her (which those who know me would tell you was quite the feat of selflessness, as I generally can't stand cats). Emma is a decent cat - very fluffy and pretty. My dad really likes Emma... always talking to her and leaving milk out for her. I think you could say he's a cat person. But I would NEVER picture him hanging out in one of these cafes.
Maybe dog people will just never understand...
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
WTF
There have been some recent family jokes as a result of my extremely conservative aunt using "WTF" in a family-wide (grandparents included) email because she thought it meant "With The Family." Amazing in and of itself.
That back story makes the new CIA task force created to investigate the Wikileaks scandals that much funnier. Get the scoop here:
Wikileaks Task Force
I love that this has to be intentional. Like the parents who name their kids Chris Christenson or Paul Paulson (or in the case of a different aunt's PASTOR: Richard Dick)... I mean, how could you NOT know? ...which in this particular case makes it that much more awesome. Well done CIA.
That back story makes the new CIA task force created to investigate the Wikileaks scandals that much funnier. Get the scoop here: Wikileaks Task Force
I love that this has to be intentional. Like the parents who name their kids Chris Christenson or Paul Paulson (or in the case of a different aunt's PASTOR: Richard Dick)... I mean, how could you NOT know? ...which in this particular case makes it that much more awesome. Well done CIA.
Monday, December 27, 2010
i'm a runner
This video is almost as funny as the "So You Want To Go To Law School" clip. And, yes, I fully recognize that I skipped a Christmas post. This is only because I was having such a wonderful time with my family and friends, entertaining them with my wit and personality in person, that I did not have time to put together a holiday muse or a rant for my cyberspace audience.
I do have about five blog posts started, and I will make it my pre-New Year's Resolution to get those finished and posted before the end of 2010. On a related note, I genuinely wonder what the New Year's Eve glasses are going to look like this year... I imagine it's going to be pretty tough with three opaque numbers.
Anyway, I really hope I'm not this guy. And if I ever have been or I ever am in the future...someone slap me.
I do have about five blog posts started, and I will make it my pre-New Year's Resolution to get those finished and posted before the end of 2010. On a related note, I genuinely wonder what the New Year's Eve glasses are going to look like this year... I imagine it's going to be pretty tough with three opaque numbers.
Anyway, I really hope I'm not this guy. And if I ever have been or I ever am in the future...someone slap me.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
welcome to society
Last night, I finally watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Yes, "finally" and "No, I had never seen it before."Recently, a couple co-workers put into writing what I have known about myself for a very long time. I haven't seen ANY movies. No, but really... like, none. It was so appalling to my witty co-workers that they decided to make a list of the "classic" movies every human (especially funny humans) must see. The following is the list, which I have committed to work through over the next few years. And again, no, I promise, I have NOT seen any of the following movies, and no I do not have an explanation for how that is even possible.
Fast Times at RidgeMont High
Caddyshack
Stripes
Fletch
Fletch Lives
Singles
National Lampoons Vacation
Breakfast Club
St. Elmo's Fire
Pretty In Pink
Some Kind of Wonderful
About Last Night
Raising Arizona
Animal House
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Reservoir Dogs
Scarface
Godfather
Godfather II
Amadeus
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
Night Shift
Less Than Zero
The Sure Thing
Gross Pointe Blank
Beverly Hills Cop
The Untouchables
Running Scared
48 Hours
Midnight Run
Blues Brothers
Trading Places
Risky Business
The Outsiders
Monday, December 20, 2010
daily self-affirmations
I need to channel a little bit of this girl this month. What should have been a month filled with holiday season optimism was unfortunately filled with what seemed like a lot of failures. However, perception is everything. I absolutely adore this girl, and I am going to start doing a similar ritual in my bathroom mirror in the mornings.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
In-Justice, Part I: Scalia
I am beginning to think perhaps it's me. Like one of those dogs that just has a scent that makes other dogs attack him. I must give off an anti-Justice scent (note the capital "J"). Stay with me...
About three years ago, I was out to a late lunch with my now-boyfriend, whose parents own a couple restaurants in Denver. His dad called to tell us that Justice Scalia had come into one of the downtown restaurants for a late lunch and encouraged us to stop by. We grabbed our check and started making our way to the restaurant, talking quickly about what we could ask Scalia and desperately trying to remember some of his biggest (but not controversial) Supreme Court decisions.
As second year law students, the prospect of meeting a United States Supreme Court Justice was almost unfathomable. Needless to say, we were nervous.
We walked into the restaurant, which was almost empty given that it was 3 pm, and were immediately greeted by secret service agents standing at the bar. We explained we were second year law students and that my boyfriend's father was the owner of the restaurant, and we had heard from him that Justice Scalia was in for lunch (undoubtedly on his way to a fly fishing trip in the mountains). We asked if we could go over and introduce ourselves. The secret service officers had mixed opinions. One immediately said no while the other immediately said "of course." They looked at each other and each did a halfway nod, mulling it over. Finally one spoke, "You can go over there and introduce yourselves, but don't stay too long because he hasn't eaten yet, and he get very cranky when he's hungry." We laughed nervously in response, wondering what exactly they meant by "cranky."
He was reading a fly fishing book as we approached the table and lowered it only slightly in acknowledgment of our presence. Just as we began introducing ourselves, his waitress exited the kitchen with his burger and fries. We moved to try to get out of her way, as she moved to avoid us and Justice Scalia moved to put his book down and make room for his plate. As she reached the plate toward the table, Scalia knocked over his large beer with his book, drenching his lunch, his table, and his lap. His head snapped up and he glared at us with gritted teeth. I don't even remember if we told him our names.
The secret service agents were immediately on the scene, yelling at us to get away from the table. "WHO LET THOSE KIDS COME OVER HERE AND RUIN MY LUNCH?!?!" He barked at them, as we backed away from the table apologizing profusely to him, the agents, the waitress and anyone else who would listen.
We retreated to the bar, dumbfounded and shaking our heads at each other, asking over and over, How did that HAPPEN?!? After getting him set up at a clean table with a fresh beer and a new lunch on its way, the secret service agents came back to the bar. We couldn't apologize enough. They were nice and took pity on two terrified law students who had just witnessed first hand the wrath they dealt with every day. They took the blame (which I suppose they're paid to do), telling us it was their fault for letting us go over there in the first place. When we asked what we could do to fix it, they told us in no uncertain terms that the best thing we could do would be to leave and hope that his second attempt at a burger and fries goes more smoothly.
I decided that day to become a transactional attorney, thereby totally and completely eliminating any chance that I would ever have to argue in front of the United States Supreme Court.
About three years ago, I was out to a late lunch with my now-boyfriend, whose parents own a couple restaurants in Denver. His dad called to tell us that Justice Scalia had come into one of the downtown restaurants for a late lunch and encouraged us to stop by. We grabbed our check and started making our way to the restaurant, talking quickly about what we could ask Scalia and desperately trying to remember some of his biggest (but not controversial) Supreme Court decisions.
As second year law students, the prospect of meeting a United States Supreme Court Justice was almost unfathomable. Needless to say, we were nervous.
We walked into the restaurant, which was almost empty given that it was 3 pm, and were immediately greeted by secret service agents standing at the bar. We explained we were second year law students and that my boyfriend's father was the owner of the restaurant, and we had heard from him that Justice Scalia was in for lunch (undoubtedly on his way to a fly fishing trip in the mountains). We asked if we could go over and introduce ourselves. The secret service officers had mixed opinions. One immediately said no while the other immediately said "of course." They looked at each other and each did a halfway nod, mulling it over. Finally one spoke, "You can go over there and introduce yourselves, but don't stay too long because he hasn't eaten yet, and he get very cranky when he's hungry." We laughed nervously in response, wondering what exactly they meant by "cranky."
He was reading a fly fishing book as we approached the table and lowered it only slightly in acknowledgment of our presence. Just as we began introducing ourselves, his waitress exited the kitchen with his burger and fries. We moved to try to get out of her way, as she moved to avoid us and Justice Scalia moved to put his book down and make room for his plate. As she reached the plate toward the table, Scalia knocked over his large beer with his book, drenching his lunch, his table, and his lap. His head snapped up and he glared at us with gritted teeth. I don't even remember if we told him our names.
The secret service agents were immediately on the scene, yelling at us to get away from the table. "WHO LET THOSE KIDS COME OVER HERE AND RUIN MY LUNCH?!?!" He barked at them, as we backed away from the table apologizing profusely to him, the agents, the waitress and anyone else who would listen.
We retreated to the bar, dumbfounded and shaking our heads at each other, asking over and over, How did that HAPPEN?!? After getting him set up at a clean table with a fresh beer and a new lunch on its way, the secret service agents came back to the bar. We couldn't apologize enough. They were nice and took pity on two terrified law students who had just witnessed first hand the wrath they dealt with every day. They took the blame (which I suppose they're paid to do), telling us it was their fault for letting us go over there in the first place. When we asked what we could do to fix it, they told us in no uncertain terms that the best thing we could do would be to leave and hope that his second attempt at a burger and fries goes more smoothly.
I decided that day to become a transactional attorney, thereby totally and completely eliminating any chance that I would ever have to argue in front of the United States Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)