Three alumni explore long-term ramifications of high tuition
Photo credit: Alexandra Robertson (3L)
On November 13, the Barriers to Excellence campaign hosted “Life After Law School: Managing Your Career and Student Debt,” a lunch-hour panel discussion with three U of T Law alumni.
The Barriers to Excellence campaign was launched in October by a group of students and alumni and seeks to oppose increases to the law school’s annual tuition fees, set to exceed $40,000 for the 2019–2020 school year. In support of this campaign, speakers at the event hoped to shine a light on how debt continues to affect lawyers’ professional and personal lives.
What’s Your Name? What’s Your Debt Like?
The panellists were Mireille Giroux (‘12), a labour lawyer at Koskie Minsky LLP, Renatta Austin (‘12), a sole practitioner in family and criminal law at Eglington West Law Office, and Cory Wanless (‘08), who practices at Wadell Phillips PC, specializing in corporate accountability, indigenous rights, and environmental law.
The panel began with a frank discussion about each of the panelists’ debt. Austin and Giroux explained that they both entered law school when tuition was around $23,000. Each graduated with about $100,000 of debt, and both are making monthly payments of $1000–$1200.
Both Giroux and Austin said the hefty debt had influenced their career choices. Austin explained that her debt affects the type of work she can take on. In order to pay the bills, she has to do less of the work she finds most fulfilling—community-based public interest work, including legal aid—and do more higher paying work that interests her less. Giroux’s debt impacted her career path as well. She focused on securing a job in private practice working with institutional clients, which influenced her choice to pursue labour law.
Wanless’ experience was different. He entered U of T when tuition was only $16,600. He still graduated with close to $70,000 of debt, but was able to take advantage of the school’s Post-Graduation Debt Relief Program, and as a result, was more free to pursue public interest work.
While the program may have worked in the past, however, Wanless feels that the debt-relief program is now little more than an empty gesture. In order to qualify for full debt relief, Wanless had to maintain an annual income of less than $60,000 for ten years after graduation. “The maximum income you can have in order to qualify for full debt relief—sixty thousand—has stayed roughly the same,” he explained, “while tuition has more than doubled and the price of living has skyrocketed.”
According to Wanless, this is inadequate: “This program was one of the big promises U of T Law made to placate the opposition to the tuition hikes… but it’s an underfunded program that I worry is primarily used as a PR exercise.”
“I can’t easily recommend that future generations attend this law school, and that really pains me . . . ”
Mireille Giroux (‘12)
Take it Personally
The panel also discussed the impact debt has on many graduates’ personal lives. “Debt doesn’t only impact your career choices,” Giroux explained, “it effects whether you can buy a house, when you get married, whether you get married, when you choose to have kids, how many kids you have, and how much parental leave you can take.”
Austin noted that these considerations hit women particularly hard. “It’s unfair, but there’s a timeline on having a family if you’re a woman. If you graduate when you’re 26 and spend the first five years of your career figuring things out, that leaves a very narrow window to have children, and one or two hundred thousand dollars of debt makes that a lot harder.”
All three panelists also expressed that as well as hurting individual graduates, high tuition hampers diversity at U of T Law and hinders access to justice. “By increasing fees,” Giroux said, “the law school is sending a clear message of who it wants in its student body and who should be in the legal profession, and it doesn’t include someone like me.” Austin added that as debt forces lawyers like her to take on fewer low-income clients, it contributes to the lack of affordable legal services.
Would You Send Your Children Here?
The panellists weren’t all doom and gloom. They also offered students advice on how to combat the eternal tuition hike. Wanless emphasized the crucial role of student activism, noting that “students in Quebec pay substantially less in tuition because every time the government tries to raise it, they fight like hell.”
Austin also suggested taking the conversation to the provincial government. “The one thing that would motivate me to run for provincial office would be to do to U of T Law what Doug Ford did to Toronto City Hall. This issue is just screaming out for regulation.”
At the same time, the number one piece of advice from all three panelists was to get more alumni involved. Austin stressed that a public statement from alumni that they could no longer recommend attending U of T Law would be particularly effective. As for the panelists, they already share that sentiment. “I can’t easily recommend that future generations attend this law school,” Giroux said, “and that really pains me, because I had such a great experience here, but if someone in their undergrad asks if they should come here, I’d say it’s just not worth it in most circumstances.”
