<p>Huge</a> debt incurred for college tuition just doesn't make the grade - The Boston Globe</p>
<p>It would be nice if it would. Based on what I read on CC a lot of people are so determined to attend their "dream" school that no amount of reasoning can dissuade them from taking on horrendous amounts of debt. I can understand that the students do not appreciate the long term consequences but I am surprised by the parents who don't want to see their child's 'dream' crushed so are willing to let them incur a lifetime's nightmare of debt. The grandma in the article had the right approach.</p>
<p>This would have been my granparent's approach as well!</p>
<p>The article covered the basic problem, however skirted around the disturbing social issues from which the whole problem arose. Obviously the SL industry, beginning with the 'privatization' of programs had, and still has, an interest in inflating fees, interest rates and etc. Some of which is done in such a manner which has warrented inquiry by both state and federal investigators. The only reason it has not reached the apogee of complete scandal and reform is because of the back room lobbying power of this industry. Keeping in mind that it is not an 'industry' of any reputable kind, rather a co-opting of older systems intended for the common good. To the extent that our 'tradition' of funding education is viewed as alien, stupid, and predatory by many in other countries.
Alas, the whole mess of escalating student debt could not have been possible without the complicity of colleges, who did so because of the gleam of money, especially that which flowed from the corporate and quasi governmental sources. Rather than attempting to increase efficiency, dispute with more traditional funding sources for adequete support, or rethink the contemporary mission of an institution, it was so much easier to fall under the spell of what seemed easy money. Problem is, the students are the one who ultimately pay. And ironically the companies who provide this service, have no place in the essential mission of a college, which is teaching and learning.
And ultimately more than the students have been betrayed. By these debt loads, college has now become a form of company town. One in which we have to 'buy from' but once that is done, we're owned.
And this financial attack hits those who do not attend 'dream schools' in a manner which is eqaully damaging. Those students often arise from economic
classes within which any form of serious debt can be terminally crippling. So when they go to a school and their 'education' does not elevate them-they often will have the entire power of a corporate and governmental collection systems coming down on them. And economically they will not survive, and so much for the American Dream for them.
The debtors paradise which has bred from these malevolent and self interested agendas, has damned too many of what should be the best, most intelligent, and creative of our society. Now rather than going out to build the economy, they are as Ms. Nixon was in the article, desperately seeking relief from crushing debts, acquired by doing no less than what our society expects they do. But rather than serving our society, their families, they are in bond servitude to a collection of predatory macroparasites.<br>
They have been betrayed, and as a society we have been betrayed. And the 15 million that the SL industry gains per day, can no longer disguise that betrayal.
And when a society damns its most intelligent, and adaptable by this kind of burden there will come a point when they apply those attributes agaisnt those who caused the betrayals.
However as our leadership continues to throw money at a predatory industry to 'save their liquidity' they are blinded by the consequence. Recklessly 'saving' an industry which has already posted unparalled profits, and untoward influence will only confirm to those caught in that industry's maw-that they have been indeed betrayed.
And that could be the break point...and at that point we will have to ask, was their profits worth the costs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's been a lot of news lately about how, as the credit crisis continues, it may be more difficult for some families to get student loans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that it is a good thing- same with mortgages- no more mortgages for people that they can't afford.</p>
<p>One daughter applied to 5 schools, she was in the lucky position of being admitted to all & any of them was a financial match.( because the private school met 100% of need)
One daughter applied to two schools, admitted to both, both very affordable ( well perhaps knock off the * very*.</p>
<p>In addition, they both took/are taking a year off to earn education stipend that will be applicable to school loans.</p>
<p>There are ways to make it affordable.
But we are so used to having choices of 250 brands of designer jeans, tennis shoes used to be between Keds, Pf Flyers and Converse & now?.....
We are set on what we want & by George- we are gonna do what it takes to get whatever we want. Or else complain about it.
If we limit our expenses upfront, we will have more choices later.</p>
<p>Or it could be just possible to make it so it can afforded, within both of the contexts of individual and social costs...</p>
<p>What a concept, and there are places that it is done, albeit not here in the USA...</p>
<p>You can read Michelle Singletary every Sunday and Thursday at washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines</p>
<p>I LOVE LOVE LOVE her advice!</p>
<p>Yip. I think colleges are some of the most genius marketers in the world. Brilliant.</p>
<p>I agree and add College Board to the top of the list. </p>
<p>It is about the best cash flow machine I have ever seen. Fees, fees, and then some more. College Board is basically the same as the colleges themselves as it is made up of an association of colleges.</p>
<p>Imagine paying $84 to take the AP Biology, Calculus, Chemistry, Physics, etc. exams to determine if you somewhat know the material. Then many colleges decide you will need to take a couple of SAT II Subject test even though you took the same subject in the AP test. More fees and wasted time for the student.</p>
<p>How about the great National Merit Program so that you may qualify to be one of the 16,000 National Merit Finalist and get the NMF scholarship at most of about $2,500. </p>
<p>You do the math:</p>
<p>1,500,000 taking the PSAT @ $16 each = $ 24 million </p>
<p>Then how many times do they take the SAT test ? Almost 2 times on average and I don't know the cost to take the SAT ?</p>
<p>Then how many SAT II Subject test? How about extra fees to send to schools? </p>
<p>Don't forget the CLEP test - there is no escaping this machine.</p>
<p>AND, don't forget the other side of the cash machine. Many schools pay to get the mailing list of the student addresses so they can send them material. I forgot how much it was per name but it adds up to the millions again. I think other companies buy the names too as why does a Gillette razor show up and I get mail from the National Guard and Army?</p>
<p>Here is my answer to it :</p>
<p>I recommend taking the ACT only !</p>
<p>That article seems pretty shallow regarding the matter, as do most articles these days that try to offer advice about taking on student loan debt. </p>
<p>If you read carefully, the debt incurred was from both college and graduate school. If the person mentioned had not gone to graduate school, they would have significantly less debt. And if the person mentioned had gone to a graduate school program that significantly increases one salary, the debt they are currently facing would not be as much of a problem. Therefore, I believe the mistake isn't necessarily the debt, it's the choice to go to graduate school when it isn't particularly beneficial.</p>
<p>Also, the other example, the article writer's own experience, isn't relevant to many CC'ers either. Most people who are seriously considering taking on a significant amount of debt are considering doing so for schools much more worth it than U of Maryland. I hope that didn't hurt anybody's feelings but to be perfectly honest I highly doubt U of Maryland is that much better than the article writer's own flagship public.</p>
<p>Actually there needs to be some cleaning up at the grad program level. One possibility would be to ensure that admissions are serious enough that these actually are graduate studies. Too often people are shunted to the higher levels, with attendant higher tuitions without actually receiving a properly enhanced education. This has been a major problem in humanities and some of the social sciences. Some of these programs might legitimately be hacked because the standards and attendant success rates for students are quite low vis a vis the costs. And have continued to do so, despite years of information demonstrating changes are needed. For example, MFA programs might be a shining example of graduate programs which badly need to be reformed or removed.
For the legal and MBA and science contingent, just perhaps they should not be charged the enhanced tuition that's often noted for these programs. Granted that may pay for 'star profs' but the actual relative educative value of a star prof and a competent 'journeyman' may not be all that marked. Plus at many schools the stars tend not as involved in teaching as they might be-due to the tradition of research over the lecture.
Being an academic, I've always found it ironic that so many espouse that their duty is 'research'. Problem is some other generation ultimately pays for their luxury of research...</p>
<p>Okay, time to ring in with part of the REAL problem of graduate school. Why are so many students so willing to borrow their maximum eligibility when they need so much less to meet tuition, books and fees? My institution has a fabuous MBA program that currently costs about $21,000 total (that's for the entire two years in the MBA program). Given the institution's formula for calculating the total cost of attendance, most students are eligibile for $20,500 each year (that's $41,000 for both years). About 75% of these students take out the entire $20,500 each year....and then scream about the amount of debt they incurred. Very soon (within the next 2 weeks or so) all MBA's will be eligible for even more funding, thanks to the Graduate PLUS loan...so most of my students will be eligible to receive almost $30,000 per year in loans. By law I must award them everything they are eligible to receive...even if they do not need the funding to cover actual cost. Also, I cannot refuse to process the funds if they ask for the entire amount. Everything we issue to students warns them about borrowing wisely and we provide them with a repayment estimate chart to show them how much their estimated monthly payments will be. However, they still borrow their maximum loan eligibility.</p>
<p>On top of this, some of our students were recently informed of a new scholarship that will pay up to 100% of their tuition costs. All they must do is complete a simple application and submit a few forms to the agency. Many of the qualified students are refusing to apply for the FREE funding because..."I already have my loans in place". No matter how loudly I scream that we can cancel the loans and return the funds to the lender, they are still adament that the scholarship is a complete waste of their time.</p>
<p>I used to feel bad for students graduating with a lot of debt....but no longer. I used to feel guilty when people blamed the schools and lenders for the heavy debt burden placed on students for their education...but no longer. The problem, most of the time, lies directly with the students, and the parents. Why take out more money than you need? Why apply at high-priced schools you cannot possibly afford? Why pass up scholarships because they are "too much work"? Why pass up community college or a local state university just for a little prestige while you are enrolled at school? For most careers, does it really matter if your degree came from Stanford, Yale, Harvard or Podunk U? Will that degree from an Ivy league school that is unaffordable really going to mean a higher salary for you after graduation? Do employers really care that you took your general education and elective courses at a community college before transferring into a four-year college or university?</p>
<p>It all boils down to making intelligent choices!</p>
<p>Well to your credit and your office, and that of your institution as a whole the matter is being handled ethically. Other schools do not do this, and guidelines are at best followed vaguely. There are universities and colleges (on a national basis as shown by recent investigations) who have literally allowed their financial aid offices to be effectively run by large SL companies. To the extent that some are even handing scholarship applications over to these companies. And yes students should know better, but the marketing tactics of the SL industry are very pervasive. For example I've seen some very, very media savvy presentations done by loan companies to 'advise' of loans and risks-which were misleading. And its hard for schools and financial aid officers to compete with that method of presenting information.
Plus students do tend to be financially naive, or more focused on the immediate pressures of getting out of graduate school. And so will often sign any document which will seem to make it all easier. Bad thinking on their part, but the corollary is that the SL industry is very aware of their market targets weaknesses. In these terms yes, the students should know better but the SL peoples marketing is unethical, sort of a "Joe Camel" approach to financing.
Additionally its a common practice for colleges to grossly inflate the potential incomes of many fields, so students who do not know or do not do the research genuinely believe their income will be such to pay the toll (at least until fees, refinancing, and the constant reselling of loans double or even triple the initial amount). Perhaps students should not be so naive in this regard, but colleges tend to be trusted for their advice. And as such, the ethical dilemma falls on those institutions who mislead students about their potential income. There is a certain irony in this, insofar as many current faculty are adjuncts and so know very well the income/education dichotomy.
But they dare not comment, as the only thing worse than being an adjunct (nee' academic sharecropper) is being an ex-adjunct. And for full time faculty, TT's etc such as myself, warnings and real information about income can only be given in an indirect manner. To do so too directly would bring the ire of administration, and the resultant marginalization would ensure that even indirect warnings would not be given.
So yes, students make stupid money mistakes. However given recent press and court investigations into the SL industry, there are much more serious ethical violations involved therein. And even if students are occasional idiots with these loans, the ultimate social costs of a generation in debt bondage is of a much more destructive nature. Ultimately we're looking at a situation that when it does implode will be worse than the current mortgage crises. And anyway, didn't the house agree to hand over millions more of federal bonds to the SL industry? An industry which has made unparalleled profits over the last few years? I'd rather see action to aid students and former students even the stupid ones, than an industry which makes an average of 15 million a day. Largely via co-opting what should be a governmental matter. It's not like they need the help, much of the current SL 'liquidity crises' is a thinly disguised and massive corporate welfare. Plus these companies, oppsie!, got their fingers burnt in conduit financing. If this massive amount of largess was given to Microsoft, it would provoke an immediate political outcry. And personally I'd rather see massive corporate welfare given to Microsoft, in general they actually produce something which benefits society rather than just their CEO, and large shareholders.
So in the whole mess, stupidity is easily found. Stupid students not thinking of their future indebtedness, colleges playing along too closely with the SL industry, Congress handing out millions to an already bloated industry, and the country as a whole for ever permitting the higher education system to become such a mess in the first place. More than enough stupidity to go around, but the only ones who really profit are large companies such as SM, NN, and etc. Which is disturbing...</p>
<p>well think the stupidity award can go around to many levels.
Ex. one student going to a 50K a year probably come away with about 30k debt per year to garner a job in an area (elementary ed) that has teachers being cut due to lower enrollments. Top starting sal about 40K. parents allowing it, are funding it.Paying 130K plus fees/interest to buy a 40K job.
another student going to an IVY to become an RN. Why? Do they think they will not have to change a bedpan? The licensing exam is a state exam, the starting salary for RN is EXACTLY THE SAME IVY or state. </p>
<p>Parents are purchasing careers, and then funding them into retirement.</p>
<p>The problem with all the reciprocal stupidity is at what point will it be a major element in the collapse of necessary systems. Your example of teachers is a very good illustration of the ironies and potential injustices involved. Education at most levels tends to pay poorly and even at state schools the costs of education is now way beyond potential incomes. And as noted in the NEA journal there are very serious arising concerns about the future of teaching because of the cost dilemmas especially in regards to the excessive demands of the SL industry. And it isn't limited to the PS school contingent, many who teach at the college level are underpaid, or as noted earlier even more grossly underpaid as adjuncts. It could be claimed that educators are stupid people for going into the trade, given the low pay and high costs of education. Problem with that concept is that society cannot function without such people, if for no other reason than somebody has to educate the future lawyers and etc. And quite truthfully and quite ironically although I have 'made it' as an academic, I'd be reluctant to advise others to enter education as a career. The escalating costs and appalling debts caused by a increasingly macro-parasitic system, seem to be making education a stupid choice. Not a good indication for social stability.
The medical field is beginning to feel the same effects, to the extent that the AMA begged the Bush administration to restore loan deferments and forgiveness to MD's. Nurses obviously could be in more trouble, as educating them, even at "WhatsamatterU" is expensive well beyond the income they will make. And as noted for many going to the cheaper school is just as damning because many of those who go that route have less overall resources to compensate for the costs of education.
There are some loan forgiveness programs in both fields, but these are very limited and have been curtailed. Plus not everybody is able, or suited to spending years in a barrio or reservation...
Parents are indeed perhaps purchasing careers, but they are increasingly doing so in a failed system which can no longer fulfill its own obligations or promises. And as long as we as a nation, allow our education system to be reliant on entities which exist to gain incredible profits from that same system, nothing will change. In this system neither the colleges nor governmental/corporate loan industry, have any real motivation to reduce costs or ensure that an education does indeed fulfill a obligation. They make their millions no matter what happens...<br>
The stupidity, alas goes back more than a generation. When the government began to cut back on the percentages of such as pells and 'privatized' the SL programs the whole situation became a fixed shell game. And most of the people in this country did not see what would come as a result of these manipulations. Problem is, now its obvious, what will we do...the current system is increasingly socially destructive to no compensating benefit except to a few large companies which have a niche which never should have been permitted. So what happened was a few astute predators benefited from the 'social stupidity' of an entire nation...the question is as a nation will we be so stupid as to allow this to ruin another generation?</p>
<p>Get a loan when you predict hyperinflation.
...Or go to a public, in-state university. </p>
<p>My parents have done enough for me already. They would find it nice if I went to a really good college. But unless I'm getting a full-ride, I'll stick with UF for now.</p>
<p>^^ </p>
<p>the problem with above, public bar the community level 2 year then transfer is also pricing many families out. Of course still much more cost effective, but if the end result is a assistant manager(busisness degree BS) at your local department/fast food joint, well back in my day, you got those jobs as a HS graduate</p>
<p>And increasingly in this day...not unknown for those manner of jobs to be held by those with masters and even other advanced degrees.
Essentially a literate form of sharecropper...interesting how much attempting to elevate oneself to the American Dream now costs, and how little it actually means.<br>
Unless of course you're one of those unique and special people who get a private golf course, and can try to buy teams for fun, all brought to you by special consideration (and redirected money) of the US government...</p>
<p>Imagine my surprise not long ago when I placed an ad for a low level support position where no degree was required, and began receiving resumes from tons of college grads. A lot of them had Business related degrees, but not all. Many had given up on their visions of grandeur in the corner office, and were now just trying to land anything they could to pay the bills. I really hope none of them were servicing huge debt from the pursuit of their undergraduate degree only to end up desperate for a support job they could have gotten out of high school, but I'd bet that was the case for a few.</p>
<p>Actually it's not all that uncommon. A few deferments, and a late payment or two, the SL companies can apply fees, enhanced interest and etc to easily double and triple the initial loan amount. Not to mention the 'enhancements' when these loans are bundled, a cheap demimonde is handed around less than some of these bundled loans.
Have to keep in mind that many of the legal restrictions on this 'industry' were removed because of special lobbying.
Many know they can never pay what has turned into a stacked deck, but to keep what amounts to as a amphetamine crazed wolf from the door they work 2 or more substandard jobs. Not that it'll matter much, because the special and unique rights given to the SL industry they can do whatever they please and often have governmental backing. This despite investigations which indicate activities verging on outright fraud including threatening those unable to pay with arrest, refusal to provide documentation and etc. All of which have been noted by reformers on both sides of the political moat, including Kennedy and Mario Cuomo. The whole situation has become like something out of the early thirties or almost Dickensian. The problem is that it is producing a social mindset which is very dangerous. Often because of this artificial and crushing burden many in our society have given up, even to the extent of suicide. And a society which allows those beliefs to develop, for no other reason than virtually unlimited profit to a limited few, is one which will fail.
There is a certain perversion of morality here that a system initially established to elevate the common man, has become a system which ensures their subjugation. And as the millions roll in we still pretend that the veneer of 'service' is intact despite it covering one of the most predatory industries the government has ever spawned.
At least Boss Tweed could build a pretty city hall, the CEO's of SM, NN and etc can't even claim that...but Tweed was a poor man compared to them. Christ Nero was poor compared to them...</p>