Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
88
views

New York University is one of the most “liberal” law schools in the country. However, in spite of the political leanings of the faculty and the students, the vast majority of its law graduates enter lucrative large firm law practices, not public interest work. To encourage students to enter public interest careers, the law school is considering two policies – a loan forgiveness program if students go into public interest careers or a scholarship program for people who say they want to go into public interest law (they would have to pay back the scholarship if they do not go in to public interest law). Suppose the two programs could be established in a way that the present value of the benefit to students going into public interest law was the same if the rate at which individuals could borrow money at was 10 percent. Do you think students would prefer one or the other option? Would all students have the same preferences? Why?

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
88
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Paramjeet Chawla
Paramjeet ChawlaLv8
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Grade inflation Gone Wild - sTUarTrojsTaCzer

A bout six years ago, I was sitting in the student union of a small liberal arts college when I saw a graph on the cover of the student newspaper that showed the history of grades given at that institution in the past 30 years.

Grades were up. Way up.

I am a scientist by training and I love numbers. So when I looked at that graph, I wondered, How many colleges and universities have
data like this that I can find? The answer is that a lot of schools have data like this hidden somewhere. Back then, I found more than 80 colleges and universities with data on grades, mostly by poking around the Web. Then I created a website (gradeinflation.com) so that others could find this data. I learned that grades started to shoot up nationwide in the 1960s, levelled off in the 1970s, and then started rising again in the 1980s. Private schools had much higher grades than public schools, but virtually everyone was experiencing grade inflation.

What about today?

Grades continue to go up regardless of the quality of education. At a time when many are raising questions about the quality of U.S. higher education, the average GPA at public schools is 3.0, with many flagship state schools having average GPAs higher than 3.2. At a private college, the average is now 3.3. At some schools, it tops 3.5 and even 3.6. A is average at those schools! At elite Brown University, two-thirds of all letter grades given are now A's.

These changes in grading have had a profound influence on college life and learning. When students walk into a classroom knowing that they can go through the motions and get a B+ or better, that's what they tend to do, give minimal effort. Our college classrooms are filled with students who do not prepare for class. Many studies less than 10 hours a week that's less than half the hours they spent studying 40 years ago. Paradoxically, students are spending more and more money on an education that seems to deliver less and less content.
With so few hours filled with learning, boredom sets in and students have to find something to pass the time. Instead of learning, they drink. A recent survey of more than 30,000 first-year students across the country showed that nearly half were spending more hours drinking than they were studying. If we continue along this path, well end up with a generation of poorly educated college graduates who have used their four years principally to develop an addiction to alcohol.

Many say that grade inflation is a complicated issue with no easy fix. But there are solutions. At about the same time that I started to collect data on rising grades, Princeton University began to do something about its grade-inflation problem. Its guidelines have the effect of now limiting A's on average to 35 per cent of students in a class. Those guidelines have worked. Grades are going back down at Princeton and academic rigour is making a comeback. A similar successful effort has taken place at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. And through a concerted effort on the part of faculty and leadership, grades at Reed College in Oregon have stayed essentially constant for 20 years.

Princeton, Wellesley, and Reed provide evidence that the effort to keep grade inflation in check is not impossible. This effort takes two major steps. First, school officials must admit that there is a problem. Then they must implement policies or guidelines that truly restore excellence.

I asked Dean Nancy Malkiel at Princeton why so few schools seem to be following Princeton's lead. Because its hard work, she answered. Because you have to persuade the faculty that its important to do the work.

Making a switch will take hard work, but the effort is worthwhile. The alternative is a student body that barely studies and drinks out of boredom. That's not acceptable. Colleges and universities must roll up their sleeves, bring down inflated grades, and encourage real learning. It's not an impossible task. There are successful examples that can be followed. I am looking forward to the day when we can return to being proud of the education that our nation's colleges and universities provide.

Analyze Stuart Rojstaczer's argument in Grade Inflation Gone Wild, addressing the following questions:
What evidence does Rojstaczer use to indicate that there is a problem?
How would you characterize this evidence (for example, scientific, anecdotal), and to what extent are you persuaded by the evidence he provides to suggest that grade inflation has a profound effect on life and learning?
To what extent does he persuade you that a change in policy is
necessary or that such a change would make a difference?

Let's change it up a little. You may have to dig a little for this one. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two banking giants that have been in news because of their role in the 2008 financial crisis. Due to this many in the government believe that the two companies should be put out of business. On the other hand, there are many who believe the companies should remain as they are. See The Case For Keeping Fannie and Freddie Alive. The argument both ways is in a sales pitch for the two contrary opinions. how would you convince someone either way on the issue of Fannie and Freddie? A reference is required to support your post

On just one major piece of economic policy, President Obama and House Republicans share the same basic opinion: kill off government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This rare bit of consensus might also prove to be a devastating mistake.

Fannie and Freddie which guarantee mortgages were placed under federal conservatorship in 2008 as the housing bust reached its apex. The firms are roughly within $42 billion of repaying the $187.5 billion they received from taxpayers, but Obama and much of Congress plan to wind them down in the belief that another federal bailout will never again be necessary.

We can't leave taxpayers on the hook for irresponsibility or bad decisions by some of these lenders or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,€ Obama said in a speech this month. We've got to encourage the pursuit of profit, but the era of expecting a bailout after you pursue your profit and you don't manage your risk well, that puts the whole country at risk. And we're ending those days. We're not going to do that anymore.€

But the political debate has been lopsided thus far focused on putting Fannie and Freddie into the grave, while largely ignoring what their demise could mean for homebuyers and the economy a sharp jump in interest rates, and a drop in the availability of mortgages.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has objected to plans to end both companies.

These are the government organizations that have made homeownership so easy, Reid recently told Nevada Public Radio. I don't agree with the president. He says he wants to get rid of them. I'm going to look closely at his recommendations because on their face, I don't like them.

Mostly, economists and investors are framing the issue in the same way as Reid.

It boils down to a tradeoff between shifting risk away from the government and taxpayers, versus keeping mortgages inexpensive and widely available, said Jed Kolko, the chief economist at the real estate firm Trulia. When push comes to shove, it's hard to do both.

Their executives received outlandish bonuses during the boom, only to foist the eventual losses caused by years of mismanagement onto the public. It rightfully enables sucker punches from Capitol Hill that voters approve of, even though the rescue kept the entire housing sector alive. Of the $1.75 trillion worth of mortgages originated last year, about 90 percent were made through the federal government.

This point matters because Fannie and Freddie ensure that the housing market does not seize up during a recession, said Ken Fears, an economist for the National Association of Realtors. Even if more private capital is needed in the mortgage industry, having the government participation creates liquidity€ that keeps the entire sector operating during tough economic times, Fears said.

Lawmakers tend to assume that the markets can transition over five or 10 years to a mortgage industry with a modest government backstop, or no taxpayer support at all. Before retiring at the end of May as a managing director for bond investor PIMCO, Scott Simon said that this amounted to a fantasy.

The private market can make mortgages, but they would trade at much higher yields and the down payments would be much higher because the private market cannot make competitive, fixed-rate mortgages with 20% or less of a down payment on the loans, Simon told National Mortgage News. Most of the people who think we should shut [the GSEs] down have a pure philosophical belief and they don't care what the outcome is. Or they simply don't understand anything about how housing finance works.

Fannie and Freddie help the economy with their guarantees, Simon reasoned but exposed taxpayers to their risks by having their own investment portfolios.

As of now, all profits from both companies go to the Treasury Department, per changes made last year to the terms of the conservatorship. In the original terms, Treasury received a 10 percent dividend from Fannie and Freddie. But Fannie and Freddie are now required to fork over all of their earnings forever to Treasury, a windfall that suddenly reduced the budget deficit.

A group of investors led by the hedge fund Perry Capital challenged this arrangement in a U.S. District Court lawsuit filed last month, claiming that they deserve a share of the proceeds after taxpayers have been repaid.

Because Fannie and Freddie are now generating cash, it would in theory be possible for the government to use these profits to create a capital cushion that prevents the need for a future taxpayer bailout.

By keeping the two companies under government control, taxpayers would benefit from the sale of about $200 billion worth of equity, investors in Fannie, Freddie, and other real estate assets explained in the background. The profits would be enough to create a capital cushion to insulate against a future downturn, without having to seek capital in the private market that could push mortgage interest rates higher.

But this requires Obama and GOP lawmakers to save Fannie and Freddie, precisely what they have vowed not to do. Obama wants a government insurance fund to replace them, while Republican congressmen favor an end to any Washington involvement with guarantees.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) would eliminate almost all federal involvement in the mortgage market. His policy assumes that the rusty tin standard of 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages would soon fade away, as more homebuyers would settle for variable-rate mortgages. Interest rates on a 30-year, fixed mortgage currently average 4.4 percent, a figure that could instead swing violently over time depending on inflation and the Federal Reserve. When the Fed attempted to tamp down inflation between 1980 and 1982, rates soared above 16 percent with the government backstop in place.

Obama would like to preserve the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage. He has endorsed adopting a more limited government backstop as outlined in a bipartisan Senate bill co-sponsored by Tennessee Republican Bob Corker and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner.

The Corker-Warner bill would also unwind Fannie and Freddie, bringing their dominance to an end. In their place would be private financial institutions that would pay into a government insurance fund. Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's Analytics, estimated that the plan would cause mortgage rates to increase by as much as 1.25 percent in the near-term. This estimate assumes a 20 percent down payment and a credit score of 750, slightly above the current U.S. average.

But of course, lawmakers have not discussed the potential tradeoffs in the early stages of mortgage reform. Unless voters have a clearer picture of the consequences, some say it could produce the same kind of boondoggle caused by Obamacare in 2010.

I don't think there has been much of a sales job to the public on what a new mortgage finance system looks like,€ said Brian Gardner, senior vice president of Washington research at the investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. I don't think you shove this down the throat of the electorate, as we saw with the health care overhaul.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in