<p>
Some state U’s have this. Actually a number of them are tops when it comes to research labs.</p>
<p>I was lucky to be admitted to a university that will cover full financial need without loans, so I’ll graduate debt free, but I expect to be helping to pay off my boyfriend’s loans for many years.
If I were looking at a major in the humanities and were not accepted to a university that covers full need, I don’t think I would go to college. I can’t imagine trying to cover college loan payments with a B.A. in English. If I were interested in English, I’d pick up vocational school and write on the side until I found an opportunity more aligned with my interests or was admitted to a better-endowed school. Writing and historical research for pleasure do not necessitate a college education.
I think the debt is worth it, though, if your intended career path absolutely necessitates higher education. You can’t become a pediatrician, for example, if you don’t go to medical school. Regardless of the amount of debt you accumulate in the process, I think it’s worth it if you’re given the opportunity to work every day in a field that gives you joy.
Of course, you have to look at where you’ll be in several decades trying to put children through school, but most STEM careers are relatively lucrative.</p>
<p>“Some state U’s have this. Actually a number of them are tops when it comes to research labs.”</p>
<p>Twopence: While state universities can offer an excellent education, it’s very hard to beat the prestige of a high-tier university in job applications immediately after undergraduate school. It’s also easier to get into graduate programs out of more prestigious universities, and to transfer to other schools out of these universities if you find out you cannot afford tuition any longer or can’t stand the campus. Most Ivies, however, don’t even accept transfer applications. I would suggest calling the financial aid office and explaining the dilemma. If you really cannot afford the difference and have some way of formally explaining this (medical costs, etc. that are not represented on federal aid applications), Ivy League schools will cover the deficit! You just have to advocate for yourself and be persistent about it. They want the students they admit to come, and they have enough money to cover everyone’s needs. I wouldn’t turn down the opportunity to make those sorts of connections if it’s at all financially viable.</p>
<p>Thread after thread, post after post, the neverending argument comes down to this: </p>
<p>What do you value more? Prestige and connections, or freedom from debt?</p>
<p>The answer is always personal. </p>
<p>As BCEagle said, “A lot of people like the granite counters experience, too. But there are lots of people who get by fine without them.”</p>
<p>Does anyone NEED granite countertops? No, but a lot of people think they need them. Just don’t ask me to forgive the loan you took out for the granite countertops, or the presigious school that you thought you NEEDED.</p>
<p>Speaking of Dave Ramsey - </p>
<p>I’m not a huge fan of his, but the other day I happened to hear him answer a call from a 40-year-old woman who had just receievd her EdD… for which she was over $100,000 in debt. She was working a part-time job while interviewing for full-time jobs that paid about $50,000 a year. Her question? How was she “supposed to pay back all this money” on a $50,000-a-year salary? Hint: She’s not going to get it done by age 60…</p>
<p>It’s not just naive 18-year-olds who are racking up all this debt (and it’s not just 18-year-olds who suffer from magical thinking.)</p>
<p>Oh, and there were many things on which I wanted to comment from this post, but I’ll just pick on this one:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not all STEM careers are created equal. Do not lump together computer science-related majors with chemistry/biology majors, whose career prospects are pretty brutal right now. And I would think that for some computer science careers, the Ivy Leagues do not offer a noticeable superiority in education.</p>
<p>I tend to believe that the co-signing for kids and grandkids is really what is causing this number to be so high, not so much their own schooling. It’s not unrealistic for a family with say, 3 children to have a child graduate from college when the parents are say, 58 years old (or older) and have $20,000 in PLUS loans or whatever to pay off. If that takes them 10 years, they are 68. Maybe a more accurate study should be how much they have 10 years AFTER the student graduates from college. If that number is still huge, ok, there is a problem. </p>
<p>Some good friends of ours have taken out hefty parent loans for their kids’ schooling. Both kids could have gotten pretty close to full rides at any number of schools based on their stats–both graduated top in their classes in high school and had 35 and 33 on their ACT’s, oldest was NMF, younger was NM commended. Their younger child got 1/2 of her private school paid for with merit aid, they are still on the hook for $20K/year. Their older child, with the 35 ACT, got $3000 merit aid for his OOS state school and they are paying $30K/year or so for him. The in-state state school (both flagships) only gave him a small merit aid award but even with that smaller award, it would have cost him half what the OOS is costing. They will be paying off that debt well into their 60’s.</p>
<p>SteveMA - I sure hope these kids are planning to get degrees that will make them good money when they graduate so they can quickly pay those parental loans off :)</p>
<p>maidenMom–hubby and I say the same thing. The younger one is going into teaching, so that would be a no. The older one is still trying to figure out what he wants to do, as a senior in college…leaning toward pharmacy though.</p>
<p>Yeah I am wondering how much of this debt is from older citizens who had to return to school later in life in order to stay competitive in their fields or because they lost their tenured jobs to somebody younger and cheaper.</p>
<p>Not a single mention in this thread or in the vast majority of the discussions on the issue on what I am convinced is the crux of the problem, and I’m speaking from first hand knowledge, which isn’t “anecdotal.” It’s real and it applies to every single loan out there.</p>
<p>The real problem is that the collections laws pertaining to student loan are different from EVERY SINGLE OTHER kind of debt. The argument put forth that “well, you can’t repossess an education like you can a house so OF COURSE we can’t allow a student loan to be discharged in bankruptcy” is complete bull. A Carribean cruise and expensive dinners and concert tickets and so forth put in a Visa can’t be repossessed either but people who run those debts up (often because they CAN, at the time, afford it) and then find out through one or a series of several misfortunes that they can’t pay them back anymore, get to discharge those in bankruptcy.</p>
<p>Either those shouldn’t be allowed to be discharged either (in which case, you have a Dickensian society with Debtor’s prison) or student loans should be. It’s simply not fair and there is. no. logical. reason. why they shouldn’t be.</p>
<p>Those stories in the 80’s about doctors who gleefully soaked up big fat incomes and filled bankruptcy to get out of student loan debts which were the impetus for the “no discharging” legislation - turned out to be fabricated, bad journalism. Simply not what happened. Simply not what is going to happen if they are dischargable again. Most people DO NOT file bankruptcy just to game the system. (there are always going to be a few…which is the case with EVERY system…that some people figure out how to abuse a system is not justification for dismantling a system.) Just as most people nowadays are filing bankruptcy not just so they could get a bunch of stuff for free, but because of valid unavoidable misfortune (the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical bills…and many of those are people who actually even did have insurance and who had every reason to think they WERE being responsible) they end up with more debt than they can ever hope to repay.</p>
<p>Since the Old Testament times it has been recognized that, not as a way to let some people get away with something that the rest of us must begrudge as we eat our gruel in order to pay OUR bills, but because it ultimately is to the benefit of all society to find a workable solution to unsustainable debt, a means of acknowledging that some kind of debt forgiveness is a necessary and practical part of a civilized society.</p>
<p>If Visa wants to give a card to someone with a bad credit history and no income and gets stung when that person can’t pay back their bills, that’s their bad.</p>
<p>If colleges weren’t absolutely insulated from any real world free market consequences of making bad loans and charging too much money in the first place, costs wouldn’t be skyrocketing as it is.</p>
<p>And does anybody realize that lenders have a huge incentive to default these loans? They all their money right then and there, up front, but they don’t have to forego the interest because that still accrues in addition to the fees which are astronomical, which pile up so fast that once in default it is almost impossible to make enough money to get out again for most people, and which are a huge, huge, huge profit for the student loan industry and they have no incentive at all to do away with this system.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, people with huge loan payments can’t buy cars, houses, start businesses, and if they lose their job (I believe that there is some unemployment going on, last I heard) and can’t make their payments, they get defaulted pdq and then that’s that. All those fair lending practices don’t apply to student loans. Why shouldn’t they?</p>
<p>There is simply no moral, ethical, or financially solid reason why they shouldn’t be regulated like any other consumer loan. If they were, the free market would resolve many of our issues. What we have now is an industry who is completely insulated from any risk whatsoever - it is all put on the students. Putting the risk onto the taxpayers isn’t the answer. Putting some of the risk BACK on the lenders is the answer. It is the right way, it is the proper way for capitalism to work, and not having it that way is the root of all the problems - and it’s the one thing NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT.</p>
<p>The argument that nobody would be able to go to school is also soft. As someone mentioned up thread, if they couldn’t just shove loan papers at a student in order to fill up those empty seats, colleges would figure out a way to not be increasing cost at what, three time the rate of inflation, isn’t that the number? The colleges would figure out alternative ways other than justifying why the debt is worth it and pushing more and more debt. Even state schools are not affordable with someone working a full time minimum wage job now…and if you could make more than minimum wage, you probably would not have as much incentive to get a degree, would you.</p>
<p>There is no justification for just a few special people or industries in a so called free market to have a guarantee of no risk on their investment that is backed up by the full force of the US government.</p>
<p>Snapdragon, I have said much of that – although not as eloquently as you. And I would add that even when loans are obstenstably made with cars or houses as collateral, the value of the assets may be temporary, overstated, illusosary, whatever. And I would also add that the bankruptcy laws in general have been tightened up such that people can be forced to have a payment plan which they can afford. Too many lobbyists are against what you (and I ) would propose, and in the end, dont kid yourself, we, the responsible ones, will end up with a taxpayer bailout. Changing the law NOW would cut down on irresponsible lending.</p>
<p>No loans should be ‘forgiven’, which is a ridiculous characterization anyway. </p>
<p>If the person getting the loan isn’t willing to live with the complete terms and conditions then they shouldn’t accept the loan. Taxpayers shouldn’t get stuck with the bad decisions of the borrowers and neither should the lenders. </p>
<p>This mentality of “I want everything now, regardless of the cost” or worse, “I’m ‘entitled’ to everything now regardless of the cost” needs to go. There’s no necessity to take on the huge loans for college - people do it because they ‘want’ to and/or because they’re misguided into believing only a $200K UG degree can possibly make them successful later in life.</p>
<p>If enough people decided that they’re not willing to pay $59K/yr to attend USC, for example, then USC would have no choice but to lower the costs or diminish in size due to having many fewer students. It’s supply and demand.</p>
<p>Don’t blame the lenders or even the colleges - it’s the borrowers who are putting themselves in the situation.</p>
<p>GladgradDad, I agree with you that taxpayers should not foot the bill, but I think that will happen. As to ONLY blaming 18YO kids, I don’t agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps not on this thread, but I have opined on many other threads that ed loans should be dischargeable thru bk. That would eliminate most private lenders and private ed loans. </p>
<p>But then only the taxpayers would be on the hook for federal loans. And THIS is the exact reason that loans are not dischargeable thru bk proceedings. Too many young adults would take the “easy” way out of their federal debt, leaving the taxpayers to pick up the tab.</p>
<p>
But that’s not what it usually comes down to. In order to get into the larger debt the parents almost certainly are cosigning the loans so it’s not just the 18 y/o - it’s the parents as well. And the title of the thread is about 60 y/o still facing debt so in many cases it’s not an 18 y/o making the decisions - it’s a 40 y/o making the decisions to borrow a large amount to go back to school. </p>
<p>Regardless, I don’t think it should be the taxpayer or the lender who’s stuck with the loan but rather, the borrower(s) (since in many cases there are cosigners are obligated on the loan in addition to the student).</p>
<p>
With a potentially large impact on who could go to school where since loans wouldn’t be available to many people now which will have people probably complaining even more and pushing for ‘government loans’ to be increased dramatically so they can still do what they want regardless of the cost. Eliminating the private loans and not putting it on the backs of the taxpayers through more government loans would sure change the landscape. The question is whether it’d change it for the better or for the worse overall.</p>
<p>It’d protect some people from themselves making poor decisions but it’d also limit opportunity for others.</p>
<p>BB, I would like to revert to the pre-2005 BK Act, which would then provide that ONLY federal loans be non-dischargeble in BK.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There is a difference between unsecured debt in the form of credit
cards, and student loans. Credit card interest rates are considerably
higher than student loan interest rates to compensate the credit card
companies for uncollectable debts. Do you really want potential student
loan interest rates of 30%?</p>
<p>Furthermore, you generally need income to get a credit card and many
students don’t have a steady income while they are in school. The credit
limits for people starting out in the working world are usually fairly
low - certainly nowhere near the levels of a four-year private college
education’s costs.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Deuteronomy 15:</p>
<p>1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how
it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made
to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone
among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts
has been proclaimed.</p>
<p>While I agree with this, I doubt that it’s going to pass both Congress
anytime soon. And I doubt that quoting the Bible is going to make a
convincing argument when this follows:</p>
<p>16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,”
because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then
take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will
become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>One could argue that colleges don’t want to take on the risk of
integrated loan units. They would be subject to banking regulations
and they would be doing something that they don’t necessarily want to
do. The Japanese Zaibatsu-style corporation is a conglomerate with its
own banking unit and this may or may not be what organizations want to
do in the United States. One could argue that companies and
organization should try to do what they are best at doing and leave
other operations to other organization that perform those operations
well.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You may feel this way but I’d disagree as someome that manages a
decent chunk of change. I’d rather get a reasonable return over
risking uncollectable debts.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I tend to agree with your general direction but disagree on a few
specific points. But neither of us is going to change the current
situation.</p>
<p>This story was recently trotted out to the public because Obama is trying to pass the student loan forgiveness act through Congress.</p>
<p>Never before had I heard of seniors still paying on student loans.</p>
<p>Perhaps they should have listened to financial advisors, for years, who have told people “go to a community college. Go to a state university. Go anywhere that is affordable. Try to pay as you go. Do everything possible to lighten your financial load and take out as few loans as possible.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This one is scary. Another 100K to get a pharmacy degree so you can hopefully find a job
at CVS where you can only get 3 days of work per week. We’re getting to a point where pharmacies are a monopoly (CVS and Walgreens). How long before they get the laws changed to allow them to dispense prescriptions with just a pharma tech license and not a full pharmasist degree? Then you have no career at all.</p>