<p>It is relevant to this thread to note that people have always made sacrifices to avoid huge college debt and make college affordable. Taking the less prestigious, cheaper route to a college degree has always been an option and continues to be. The exact circumstances have changed, yes, but it is still possible to minimize or eliminate college debt by avoiding the high-cost, 4-year away colleges in favor of taking the merit scholarships to lower ranked schools, commuting from home to junior college and local universities while working part-time (or full-time and attending classes part-time). Today, students have the option of on-line courses too, which gives them even more flexibility.</p>
<p>Bay, it seems you have glossed over the fact that the student loan debt crisis didn’t exist in the 1970s. You could literally work your way through college without taking on student loans. That doesn’t exist anymore unless your employer offers tuition reimbursement (this is becoming less common every year). The most common type of financial aid in the 1970s was institutional and federal grants. That is no longer the case today. Then, you have non-prestigious colleges and universities offering merit aid to entice affluent families (who don’t need the money), leaving poor students relying more on student loans that they cannot afford. Furthermore, the Pell Grant ($5,500) alone does not fully cover tuition and cost of living expenses for low-income students attending non-prestigious four-year institutions.</p>
<p>You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you attend a college FAR beyond your parent’s means to afford and take out exhorbitant loans to pay for it, then YES one day you WILL be responsible to pay back those loans. If you take out college loans thinking there is some loophole that lets you avoid paying them, then you don’t understand how these work.</p>
<p>Financial responsibility starts by being realistic about which colleges you can reasonably afford to attend and how much debt you choose to accumulate in doing that.</p>
<p>Do you have outstanding student loans that you feel are unreasonably burdensome? If so, what were your circumstances that compelled you to take them?</p>
<p>I don’t know a lot of 17 or 18-year-old individuals who are wise and prudent enough to assess the gravity of and correctly choose between obtaining what is (to them) the best education at a greater cost or an ostensibly lesser education at lower cost. There are times when it may make economic sense, tho’ I’m inclined to think that any potential indebtedness beyond, say, $60K for an undergrad degree should be re-thought. To me, over $80K is definitely beyond the pale.</p>
<p>I certainly didn’t have to make that decision – public university tuition was a relative pittance, still measured in the hundreds of dollars, when I first attended 30+ years ago.</p>
<p>“I certainly didn’t have to make that decision – public university tuition was a relative pittance, still measured in the hundreds of dollars, when I first attended 30+ years ago.”</p>
<p>Which confirms my entire point in this thread. People who attended college 30+ years ago did not face skyrocketing tuition. You could work your way through college without the need of a loan. College was AFFORDABLE back then. </p>
<p>Today, even the un-ranked / cheaper college or university requires taking out student loans to cover tuition and cost of living expenses. It’s silly to deny this reality.</p>
<p>My 17 and 18 year old seniors know about borrowing, because I’ve told them. </p>
<p>There are tons of calculators and estimators that can show them if they borrow $25k over 4 years and earn $35k per year, how much their payments will be. My daughter had to do an econ project this year on how to live on $35k/yr, and the budget didn’t include paying back student loans, so she knows there is no room in the budget for doing that.</p>
<p>If they want to give the students a break, the people who should bear the brunt of the haircut should be the educational institutions not the taxpayer. Colleges are throwing money around because they can use students and get easy loans, and if loans can’t be repaid, it should be between the students and colleges on who’s responsible, not the guy on the street or the one who was responsible.</p>
<p>It depends on which state you live in. Which is why I dislike blanket statements about the availability of affordable options. Yes, tuition has gone up, but CA is still very affordable. Community college costs about $45 per unit. Cal State Us are about $6500 per year. All state Us (including the UCs), of which there are about 32, are tuition-free for those making less than $80K per year.</p>
<p>What are your public u options in Michigan, tensighs? Where did you go to college and how were you able to afford it?</p>
<p>Adding,
The point in bringing up experiences of the past is not to claim that the challenges today are the same. Rather, the point is that people have always had to compromise their college choices based upon affordability. What kids have to do today is nothing new in that regard.</p>
<p>Further, the idea that you feel the need to inform parents of college-aged kids about the affordability of college today is a bit silly for you to be doing here in the parents forum. Like we, of all people, wouldn’t know.</p>
<p>A serious issue, however, is that adjusting for inflation…even public colleges are no longer the bargains they once were…and are given far less governmental support than was the case decades ago.</p>
<p>Moreover, several decades ago, the best and brightest did attend public universities because they were not only exceedingly inexpensive/free for in-state/city residents, but also academically elite institutions in their own right. The inexpensiveness, prestige, and greater levels of taxpayer support at all levels of government meant they attracted the best and brightest faculty and students. </p>
<p>UWisc-Madison and CUNY/CCNY before 1969 are two good cases in point. </p>
<p>When taken in that context, the older generations who benefited from free/exceedingly nominal tuition at public institutions which did have great regional and/or international prestige cannot compare the scale of financial concerns over college compared with later generations such as my own or much more so, the millennial generation.</p>
<p>^^^^ Totally agree with cobrat. Since the 1980s, state support (appropriations) for higher education has declined dramatically, forcing colleges and universities to raise their tuition and passing the costs onto consumers. In addition, more public institutions are increasing the percentage of their out-of-state and international student enrollment (at the expense of in-state and underrepresented students) because this demographic can afford to pay the higher tuition. The real losers are poor and middle-income families.</p>
<p>Many states have adopted a high-tuition, low-aid model for public institutions that hurts students and their families. California has been an exception to the rule since it has historically been a low-tuition, high-aid state. However, the ongoing fiscal crisis over there may change that very soon. Even the coveted UC system will no longer become a bargain because it is becoming more expensive for in-state students. It is also relying on rising out-of-state enrollment to cover their budgets.</p>
<p>However, keep in mind that in the same period of mid-'60s and before, the idea everyone was entitled to a 4-year college education/degree would have been regarded as odd. Attending and finishing college back then was still regarded as something for the academically best and brightest and/or scions from wealthy families. </p>
<p>With the public 4-year colleges, one either had to compete and pass high admissions requirements or enroll on an open admission basis with the understanding the odds of being weeded out can be greater than 1/2…regardless of major for the college to ensure all its graduates met an acceptably high academic standard. </p>
<p>Some of my friends attending lower-tiered private universities in the early '90s had a taste of this when at orientation, they were told by university officials that only around half or even a third of them will make it to graduation.</p>
<p>^ The economy was different thirty years ago. People could earn a living wage with a high school diploma. When the outsourcing/offshoring crisis occurred in high-paying blue- and white-collar occupations, the lack of options forced people to pursue a postsecondary education. Low-wage, service-oriented work does not support a family. The middle class is facing an uncertain future. Credential inflation, indeed, is a major issue, but that’s for another topic.</p>
<p>By the same token, kids who have huge student loans are not in a crisis since their income is greater than their expenses (as long as the live with their parents and eat Ramen noodles for all 3 meals).</p>
</p>