<p>Polarscribe–The realtor told us that we could afford a much more expensive house than we thought we could afford. We bought the less expensive house because that is what we could afford. People need to take some responsibility.</p>
<p>Personal responsibility is a quality that is lacking in today’s soceity. It seems like few people want to take ownership of their part of the blame.</p>
<p>Should banks be lending to some people. No. But the people taking the money offered also should know they can’t pay it back–whether it was for an expensive house or an expensive college it’s the same difference.</p>
<p>Kids might not realize the price of having all the debt but their parents should. To get those ridiculous loans the parents are co-signing. They need to learn to say NO.</p>
<p>For everyone who wants to blame banks or schools or their neighbor for giving them poor information they need to remember that when they point their finger there are 3 of their other fingers pointing back at them.</p>
<p>Again, we’re talking about 17-year-old high school seniors being marketed and pitched to by university “brands,” each of which has every incentive to try and get them to spend as much money as possible. They use slick advertising, peer pressure, all the classic techniques of seduction.</p>
<p>It’s like tobacco and alcohol advertising to teens. You can be as responsible as you want, but it’s hard to resist a cartoon character telling you smoking is cool. It’s hard to resist your friends talking about the awesome colleges they got into, or the guidance counselor who says “go for it,” or the people on these forums who say “live your dream (by going $200,000 into debt).”</p>
<p>Go look at the research. Why were things like Joe Camel banned? Because the science says they were brutally effective at manipulating young minds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a trite bit of doggerel, not a logical argument.</p>
<p>Of course a 17 year old will fall for the marketing but the 17 year old can’t get the big loans. They can only get the federal ones. It’s the parents responsibility to say no it’s not affordable to go to xyz school. And in reality they should have instilled the value of a dollar and some good old common sense long before the kid reaches 17.</p>
<p>As far as being trite I could say the same thing about comparing tobacco and alcohol marketing to loaning $200,000 for college.</p>
<p>Its amazing to me that the same people who think college kids shouldnt be allowed a glass of wine, think that kids should be able to commit to hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. I guess they are mature enough to make financial decisions, but not to drink.</p>
<p>Proud, many of these parents are themselves uneducated. I do have compassion for them.</p>
<p>*if they weren’t able to put $200,000 worth of loans in front of everyone who applied, while claiming $1,000-per-month payments are “good debt.” *</p>
<p>Right…but actually on that amount of debt, the payments would be over $2,000 per month…yikes!!!</p>
<p>It is ridiculous how students think they can borrow any amount to make their dreams come true and their lives perfect–in their minds. It is sad that parents are sucked in trying to create a perfect world for their little angels.</p>
<p>I think that is a huge part of the problem…there are too many parents who rarely have ever told their kids “no” when their child has expressed a wish/dream/want. I know parents who literally buy every item on their kids’ Christmas lists. Seriously…and many go into debt to do so. And, some are lowish income!</p>
<p>Kmcomom, if the US had the rules that Canada did, we wouldnt be facing the massive student debt problem. No one as far as I know is suggeting that govt debt be forgiven in bankruptcy</p>
<p>If we lived in a perfect world, where every parent is financially literate and passed on to their kids the importance of financial planning and an understanding of debt, we wouldn’t be talking about these things. My mother is an accountant and you better believe I got the lectures on being responsible with money!</p>
<p>But obviously, our world is not perfect. Lots of kids don’t get these lessons. Or they ignore them. Just like they don’t get lessons (or ignore them) on the effects of tobacco and alcohol. So as a society, we’ve said “OK, let’s not let kids use those drugs because unknowing abuse can have seriously life-altering impacts.” Well, $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt can have equally life-altering consequences.</p>
<p>
LOL 
And yes, you’re right, we wouldn’t. I feel bad for U.S. students because (and my own is one, but he lucked out with great merit) I feel on one hand there’s almost TOO many great options, but on the other hand, MANY of those great options are out of reach – so they’re really only options if YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY INSANE AND THINK ANYONE CAN HANDLE $200K DEBT ON GRADUATION!
And then the triple curse is that no one will stop you from being ABSOLUTELY INSANE ;)</p>
<p>So it’s kind of like being a chocoholic at the Willy Wonka factory. It sure TASTES great (but you remember what happened to kids at the Willy Wonka factory!) Or as Huxley said, they will come to love their oppression…</p>
<p>If private student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy lenders would be far less likely to make them, colleges could not count on them to fill ridiculous funding gaps and ultimately would need to pick and choose between financially needy students more carefully and provide better funding to a select few to increase their diversity. I don’t think any kid should borrow above the federal limits and I think they’d be wise to stay below them if possible unless they have a rock solid plan to decrease the loans after graduation.</p>
<p>I see students lured into borrowing more than they’ve wanted to because the marketing of the dream is so very effective in US society. Too few question whether or not an educational loan is in fact “good debt”. 27K in debt for a degree in engineering, business or hard sciences is probably a decend risk - perhaps not for some other degrees for certain students.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think every kid who is considering large loans should read this article. Especially this part:</p>
<p>“If you have a lot of people finishing or leaving school with a lot of debt, their choices may be very different than the generation before them,” said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for Student Access and Success. “Things like buying a home, starting a family, starting a business, saving for their own kids’ education may not be options for people who are paying off a lot of student debt.”</p>
<p>In some circles, student debt is known as the anti-dowry.</p>
<p>It’s very sobering.</p>
<p>Bookreader, that is so scary. For everyone, not just the kids with excessive debt. Do you want someone checking out whether your kid has an anti-dowry?</p>
<p>Is it called an “anti-dowry” because instead of gaining money from marriage, you are inheriting your spouse’s debt?</p>
<p>A dowry is supposed to make your potential spouse a more attractive proposition.</p>
<p>An anti-dowry makes your potential mate less attractive.</p>
<p>Having a mortgage payment with no house to show for it would be a huge negative in prospective mate - who wants to instantly become liable for a huge pile of debt? Unless they have the potential income, e.g. a doctor.</p>
<p>I understand that you guys are mostly parents; but i would like to weigh in my two cents</p>
<p>I am seventeen now and my parents will be footing the bill for college so I dont have too many worries; but for students not as fortunate as I am, I really think this kind of situation comes down to one concept and one concept alone: Personal Responsibility</p>
<p>If we as a society, accept that an 18-year old is eligible to vote, then why shouldnt’t he/she be responsible for financial decisions.</p>
<p>Is there predatory lending? Ofcourse
Are students/teachers/counselors being irrational?Even moreso</p>
<p>I think it all comes down to the “Branding” and “Imagery” colleges have been able to exude
Think of it: Apple, Nike, Gucci, Columbia,etc…Very savvy marketing</p>
<p>My solution would be to keep it non-dischargeable;too many taxpayers are already paying for other people’s inadequacies and misjudgements and frankly any politician who advocates this would be seen as wildly unpopular(bcos taxes would eventually have to be raised; the us is broke, so i hear). What we should do is very simple: Cap the maximum amount; i dont care if it infringes on your personal freedoms; CAP IT…NO MORE STUPID BORROWING…NO MORE USING TAXPAYER SWEAT AND BLOOD TO BAIL OUT FOR IMMATURE AND UNINTELLIGENT BEHAVIOUR
JUST NO MORE!!!</p>
<p>kayf</p>
<p>Yes, I’d encourage my kids to find out if a potential spouse has debt - any kind of debt. The reason is simple. A marriage is a contract and with that contract comes contractual obligations. If one party has debt, after saying ‘I do’, both parties now have that debt. </p>
<p>It’s the same reason that I’d want them to know if the potential spouse has an STD since once they are married, they will both (in all likelihood) be sharing this disease. </p>
<p>One needs to go into marriage with ones eyes wide open. Everything should be known about each other so that there are no surprises (well, no big surprises that could be potential deal breakers). A large debt limits options and I’d absolutely want my kids to know that. And yes, I would expect that my kids would be asked about this by any potential spouse. The question certainly goes both ways. </p>
<p>Both chaospaladin and notrichenough correctly pointed out the issues with this ‘anti-dowry.’ No one is saying that it is a deal breaker by definition. Rather that it could be a deal breaker.</p>
<p>Saynotoharvard,</p>
<p>Are you saying that making loans dischargeable means a taxpayer bailout? I dont see it that way. I see making banks deal with it. BTW, the tarp loans to banks were all repaid. Let the banks lose money on whatever they want.</p>
<p>The problem with just screaming “personal responsibility,” as ever, is that we live in a human society that collectively suffers the consequences of - and pays the price for - irresponsible behavior. No man is an island. One person’s irresponsible decision - say, not wearing a helmet while motorcycling - doesn’t just affect that person. It affects the entire society. Hospital bills, crash investigation costs, long-term medical complications and disability, care of orphaned children - all of those impose a needless cost on the rest of us.</p>
<p>We have a direct interest in discouraging irresponsible behavior not only to save people from their own bad decisions, but to reduce the impact those bad decisions have on the society at large.</p>
<p>Book, I am not critizicing anyone for looking at the size of the anti-dowry, I am just saddened that we appear to be going back to Victorian times for mores.</p>