<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>I used teachers' salaries as an example of how someone who spent 5-6 years getting an education might have a hard time repaying student loans if interests are high. Librarians, for example, need an MLS and their salaries are similar to that of teachers. There are many jobs which pay in that range and for which a college degree or more is required.</p>
<p>xiggi,
I am a principal for a large Catholic archdiocese and tend to be paid less than the loca district, however, my school pays a higher scale that required. I am running off to work, but will give you some pay comparisons tonight!</p>
<p>Marite, I fully understand the difficulty of repaying high interest loans. Two elements can be evaluated: teachers salaries and other income and then the cost of the debt. Based on that, we can then look at what has happened in education funding during this administration and the ... prior ones. Let's compare the budgets of the Education Department before 2001 and after. Let's look at the efforts made by the prior "education" president to curb the organized theft by organization such as Sallie Mae. </p>
<p>While the knee-jerk reaction to compare the cost of waging a war in Irak to our spending on education is understandable, the reality is such comparison serves no purpose. We might be better served to measure the impact of subsidizing gasoline to lower the cost to $1.00 per gallon ... or charge $7.00 by adding a tax of $4.00 per gallon. Apples and oranges! </p>
<p>In the meantime, everyone should understand how interest to students loan is computed, and the role of the president in setting those rates, as well as the role of our Congress. </p>
<p>As a student with numerous years of education ahead of me, I am ALL in favor of reducing the total of my bills. However, I also try to be realistic about the forces that contribute to the rampant inflation in the cost of education. For instance, while a reduction from 5% to 3% in interest rate is helpful, it won't do much if the amount to be borrowed is raised by 10%.</p>
<p>Speech Pathologists MUST (no exceptions) have a masters degree to become certified and licensed to provide services. This takes a minimum of 6 years (4 undergrad and 2 graduate...assuming graduation for that undergrad degree takes place in 4 years). Then the person has to pay to be both certified by the state BOE, and licensed by the licensing body in their state. AND if they want certification through the American Speech Language Hearing Association, they get to pay for that too....annually (there is an annual licensing fee as well). It's a shortage field nation wide.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>Again, I use teachers salaries as an illustration. I make no comment on the education budget, policies, admission policies, etc... Thumper provides another illustration of issues facing students.</p>
<p>I agree with you that inflation may eat up any savings achieved through lower rates. But that is not something the government or congress can control. I remember the starting salary of someone who was ahead of my H in grad school, went into academia in the early 70s, teaching at a top university: $12k. That same person today is earning well beyond ten times that amount. His benefits have similar increased.
Since I brought up housing costs, the studio apartment I lived in while in grad school rented for $120 a month. It now rents for ten times that.</p>
<p>Smart move by Rove. He knows that Republicans have lost the next elections, that GW is more than a lamed duck. The Republican Legislators will vote For any education proposal to look good to the electors. Rove will have GW veto any education bill to make the GOP appear to look standfast to budget and true conservatism. Goal is to keep far right happy and to minimize loss of moderate GOP members.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some type of loan system should be set up for public service persons and people who can't afford to payback their loans. Also, i wonder what time did you go to school?
[/quote]
If one can't afford to pay back a loan then they shouldn't 'get' a loan. It's not a loan if there's no intent to pay it back so they shouldn't be called loans - they should be called grants, subsidies, etc.</p>
<p>As one can guess from my moniker, I went to college in the early 70s. I used student loans for it, supported myself 100% during college by working, took no money from my parents, had no subsidies, and paid back the student loan 100%. </p>
<p>The nice thing about the student loan (at least at that time) was that one didn't need to start paying it back immediately and one had a lot of years (more now than then I think) to pay it back once the payments started. Granted, I might not have been able to afford as much for a few years as the next guy whose parents paid for their college but it never bothered me and I always felt like it was a worthwhile investment. </p>
<p>It's true that one needs to consoider their investments versus the cost of that investment and its potential return. If I was going to pay for my own college, knew that I wanted to be a 2nd grade teacher in the public school, and had no other source of income, I wouldn't choose to be educated at an full-freight expensive private college and saddle myself with loans I knew I couldn't pay back or would have a hard time paying back. I 'would' however consider a local state U, combo of community college and local state school in order to obtain a less expensive (and not necessarily less quality) education or I might consider taking advantage of educational opportunities of the military or other governmental programs. I would 'not' however obtain loans I knew I wouldn't be able to pay back. If I didn't know what career I'd end up in and already had loan obligations before deciding my career I 'would' make sure to choose a career path that would allow me to pay back my obligations. I don't think this excludes the teaching profession and in fact, I think there's likely a significant percentage of working teachers who used student loans to make it through college and paid them back as they should.</p>
<p>U-U-Dad, you've laid out the options available to current graduates quite clearly and accurately. I just think it's lousy public policy to have those be the only options. Back in our day, a person could get through the college they were best suited for academically with part time work and a modest amount of debt, and be free to embark on the career they were best suited for personally, without having to have the weight of massive debt as the primary consideration in that decision. A job, yes. The highest entry-level paycheck one qualified for? Not really. Your casual assertion that someone whose plan (at age 17) is to become a primary school teacher should resign themselves to four years at the local commuter school(s), and never aspire to anything different than that no matter how talented they might be, is just sad, to my way of thinking.</p>
<p>The cost of college has grown entirely disproportionately to the growth in middle class incomes. We're starting our kid's generation off in life a long way behind where we started off, as a group. And it's the result of lots of individual policies, laws, regulations and other discretionary choices made by our representatives in government. They're our kids and our kids' friends, they're screwed, and we did it to them. That's what I'm not happy about.</p>
<p>It's not easy to know at 17 or even later whether one will have the ability to pay back loans, is it?</p>
<p>I know someone who is a physician. She and her PhD. husband have lived frugally for years in order to pay back student loans. Recently, she has been diagnosed with MS and will have to curtail her working drastically. I am not sure whether they have finished paying back those loans. And yet, at the time they took them out, the future seemed to be pretty rosy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your casual assertion that someone whose plan (at age 17) is to become a primary school teacher should resign themselves to four years at the local commuter school(s), and never aspire to anything different than that no matter how talented they might be, is just sad, to my way of thinking.
[/quote]
This isn't what I said or meant to imply. I wasn't trying to be casual or flippant about it. I only used it as an example since other used it. And, I don't think it's quite as difficult to achieve as some are making it out to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not easy to know at 17 or even later whether one will have the ability to pay back loans, is it?
[/quote]
No it isn't but the cost of their education versus their ability to repay loans extended to them in good faith should be taken in consideration. </p>
<p>Do any of you think that any student should have carte blanche to spare no expense on their education and then choose any career regardless of the expenses they've racked up and leave it to the taxpayers to make up the difference? Should it be considered okay for them to attend, for example, 6 or 7 years at an expensive private then choose a very low paying career or maybe do volunteer work with almost no income because that's what they 'feel like doing' without consideration of paying back their loans? I don't. </p>
<p>If one's position is that all higher education to anyone regardless of the institution should be paid for by the taxpayer, well I suppose that would be an interesting position but it would have huge financial consequences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The cost of college has grown entirely disproportionately to the growth in middle class incomes...and we did it to them
[/quote]
I suppose as long as we seem to come up with ways to continue to pay the fees charged by the colleges the yes, they'll probably keep hiking the rates. It's a matter of supply and demand. I can't see the top privates reducing their sticker price since there's far more demand than supply in those handful of colleges. </p>
<p>Many students and families have decided to spend >$40K per year for private colleges. Some families can afford it easily, some will struggle and scrape to afford it, and others will receive grants from the privates in order to be able to attend which I think is great. I don't think there should ever be an obligation on the part of the taxpayer to subsidize students going to private schools. I'm fine with enabling it through student loans but I expect those loans to be paid back.</p>
<p>Many other students and families have decided to attend various public Universities for any number of reasons. Some have decided based on financial considerations. Some choose them because there are some outstanding public Universities out there, and choose them for the majors/research ops, etc. There's nothing wrong with choosing this route and by many measures the quality of education at many publics surpasses many privates.</p>
<p>As with almost anything, there are expensive routes and there are less expensive routes. People need to stay within their means as with any item or service they purchase.</p>
<p>Lots of discussions going on here at once. Some observations:</p>
<p>Yes teachers earn comparitively less $ than others at the same level of education (although here in suburban NY the difference isn't much). I am a teacher. I ONLY WORK 180 DAYS A YEAR! Its a tradeoff I made and fully appreciate! Especially now in summer. For most public school teachers , the benefits far outweigh anything comparable in the private sector. Retirement at 55, a pension and health benefits. Its worth a lot of money. And teachers constantly whine about how underpaid they are - my God you should sit in the staffroom and hear it! I am particularly sensitive to it because I have a husband in the real world. Yes he earns a lot more than I, but he works incredibly long hours, and "vacations" are short, he's constantly calling the office... There are tradeoffs in life. You certainly are able to discern at ages 18-21 what you want - money or family friendly lifestyle.</p>
<p>My daughter is now attending a very expensive 40K+ private university. And every year, for 3 years now,the tuition has gone up. No explanation. They just send us a notice. Its outrageous that there is no accountability. They just keep raising tuition because they can. I think the only thing that will cause tuitions to level off is less demand. So the federal government increasing $ to schools in a way just feeding the beast</p>
<p>I wanted to quantify some of this a bit so here's a small snapshot (actual comparisons will vary geographically) - </p>
<p>Cost to attend SDSU (San Diego State University - a perfectly fine institution) for 4 years (Tuition + books/supplies) = $4800 per year = $19,200</p>
<p>Starting salary for a K-6 teacher in San Diego public schools at the lowest grade with only a BA degree (228 day contract) = $47K per year. Note that this is for fewer days of work than a typical non-teaching job.</p>
<p>Assuming one took out student loans to pay the entire tuition/books/supplies, this makes the loan less than 50% of the starting salary. This is actually much better than I had when I graduated many years ago where my debt load to starting salary was much worse than my example above.</p>
<p>Of course, one can always spend more money. They could go to UCSD rather than SDSU and have to go for 5 years since UCSD doesn't have a 4 year BA teaching program and the tuition at the UC is higher (but still fairly reasonable IMO). They could opt to go to USD (a private in San Diego) which is about $37K per year (tuition/books/etc.) but then they might also want to live on-campus at USD which is now up to $48,600 per year for a 4 year total of about $194,400 to also end up with a teaching degree.</p>
<p>So, a person has choices based on their own situation and means. Using my example above they could opt to spend about $19,200 at a fine school or about $194,400 for another fine school literally a few miles down the road with the same degree and both obtain the same job. The first person will have about a 50% debt to starting salary ratio while the second will have about a 400% debt to starting salary ratio. I know students pursuing teaching degrees at all of these institutions. They all made their own decisions for their own reasons and I'd expect them to all pay for their decisions.</p>
<p>" New loan forgiveness programs would be established for early childhood educators, nurses, foreign language specialists, librarians, certain teachers, child welfare workers, speech language pathologists, National Service participants, and public sector employees."</p>
<p>This makes a lot of sense to me by attracting and retaining people in fields that are important, but pay far less than do many other fields.</p>
<p>UUDad---According to Cal State's own information, a year at San Diego would cost</p>
<p>17,706 to live on campus. Not the 4800 per year you quoted. Even if one lives at home, it still comes in at 11,246.</p>
<p>I was amazed at how expensive our "inexpensive" alternatives are. Even if a student works summers for 5K-7K each, they could still be looking at $45-50K in loans to payoff. That's if their parents didn't pay, of course.</p>
<p>-
<a href="http://www.calstate.edu/SAS/fa_coa.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.calstate.edu/SAS/fa_coa.shtml</a></p>
<p>I tried to copy the nice little chart on these pages, but it didn't come out as I hoped.</p>
<hr>
<p>Back to the top
California State University, San Diego With Parents
On-Campus
Off-Campus </p>
<p>Fees
3,122
3,122
3,122 </p>
<p>Books and Supplies
1,283
1,283
1,283 </p>
<p>Food and Housing
3,429
10,093
9,352 </p>
<p>Transportation
840
816
1,043 </p>
<p>Misc, Personal
2,572
2,392
2,496 </p>
<p>TOTAL
$11,246
$17,706
$17,296</p>
<p>The most expensive option is the last on the chart - the living "off campus" but not at home. Since many cal-states don't offer 4 years of housing, I imagine a lot of students live off campus. This isn't more expensive at San Diego, but it,s the case at some of them...</p>
<p>asap:</p>
<p>Yup - I quoted the living at home and made the giant leap that the parents might still be willing to feed and clothe the student. Transportation can be had relatively cheaply. At UCSD for example, transport on the city bus is free for students (within some finite area). It looks like the same may not be true with SDSU but they offer a bus and trolley (light rail that stops at the campus) passes for $116/semester so add another $332 to my cost estimates.</p>
<p>A colleague of mine has 5 kids. They're all either grads of or going to or headed for SDSU. They live at home and commute. It was his choice to have 5 kids, not mine, but I thik he's handling it well - all at no additional cost to the taxpayer (other than what's already subsidized at this public U).</p>
<p>Again, one can pick the lower cost route based on their means or they can pick higher cost routes based on their wants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The maximum Pell Grant, the largest need-based student grant, would increase from the current $4,050 to $5,200 by 2011-2012.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So colleges can charge more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Federal loan limits would increase so students don't have to take out as many expensive private loans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So colleges can charge more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
TEACH, a tuition assistance program for undergrads and grads who commit to teaching in a high-needs area for four years, would also be established.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So colleges can charge more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A guaranteed $500 million would be set aside over five years for historically and predominately African American institutions, tribal colleges, and institutions for Alaskan and Hawaiian natives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm, whatever.</p>
<p>Looks to me like this bill is chock full of pork for colleges.</p>
<p>Do most students at SDSU commute? I know that most students at UMass-Amherst do not. Amherst is in a fairly isolated spot.</p>
<p>True, colleges will be able to charge more. Do you see a better solution, apart from capping tuition at privates?</p>
<p>Perhaps as the top colleges become wealthier they will meet the competition of places like Amherst, Harvard, Davidson, etc. and eventually eliminate loans.</p>
<p>Of course one can pick the lower cost route. Most middle-class students do.
I'm just surprised that it comes in as high as it does, especially if you don't live at home. Over $70,000 for the cheapest on-campus 4-yearcollege experience seems pretty steep to me. It's easy to see why so many families can't afford it.</p>