<p>I like to pay 10% of my income like the ones Stanford/Harvard are using.</p>
<p>Well have responded to that question on other discussions. But a start would be to take the money which currently is being transferred to the loan companies in the forms of federal guarantees and etc and move that into direct student aid. There should be no more federal money going to ensure 'liquidity' for student loan companies especially if no concessions are made by these companies to remedy to their oft abusive treatment of student borrowers. </p>
<p>Investigations into the massive over billings, and criminal prosecutions. Those companies who are found guilty might be covered under RICO asset provisions. Investigation into the USDOE and any regulator or employee who possesses incestuous ties to the lending industry needs to be investigated and dismissed. </p>
<p>Restoration of consumer rights concerning these loans is imperative including payment agreements wherein only a certain proportion of income need be paid. And time limitations on these notes need to be applied. Loan forgiveness programs for service occupations need to be expanded. And because outrageous fee enhancements (220% by one companies admission) are a major part of the problem, this needs to be addressed. The abusive collection practices of these companies needs to be stopped, consumer protections applicable to other financial paradigms need to be applied. If a company is found to have used abusive and illegal practices in collections the executives responsible should be investigated, charged and prosecuted. </p>
<p>It's not like this industry developed as some free market initiative, this industry only existed because of government complicity. So it can be changed by the same means. </p>
<p>Within academe, more oversight into expenditures. If any federal money is involved in either student support or institutional support grants, programs such as building initiatives which do not markedly assist student education could result in a proportional withdrawal of such aid. </p>
<p>On college recruiting materials tracking numbers on employment of their alumni need to be publicly posted along with all the shiny pictures. As do relative amounts of student debt per program and default rates. All of this information is available but is often restricted from the public. </p>
<p>Elected officials who have taken substantial amounts of lobby money from the edudebt industry need to be voted out. </p>
<p>Studies need to be made to transition the US system over to the models used successfully by other countries. And the recommendations from these studies need to be applied as policy.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for somebody with huge loans. However, just like with the housing and credit cards, I never understood an idea about obtaining anything (education included) that is not affordable. There are ways to get college education without huge tuitions and loans. Well, sometime it takes not to go to very top school although kid graduated at the top of her HS class. Or, it might take a longer way to go to CC, find a full time job that will pay for the rest of your college educaion. Our family used both routes to finance college education without loans. Some might say that times are bad, but I remember much worse. I did not mean to offend anybody, however, careful planning of family expenses is the only way that I know to minimize financial trouble. I did not say that financial trouble could be completely avoided. I have lost job many times and know exactly how it feels.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of the appalling lending practices described by Atana in post #42 may be legal, so laws need to be changed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Studies need to be made to transition the US system over to the models used successfully by other countries. And the recommendations from these studies need to be applied as policy.
[/quote]
Yes, we do not need to reinvent the wheel; as with health care, there are plenty of good models currently in practice in Canada and Europe.</p>
<p>The problem is that for those who do attend state schools or CC's although the debt load might be less it can be destructive when correlated to their potential incomes. And the recent trends of lowering tuition has occurred mainly at the higher echelon schools whose populations are actually less vulnerable. </p>
<p>Tuition has increased an average of 6% yearly since 2001, and non loan support programs such as grants have been largely superseded by the selling of privatized loans. For example;
"College education costs have risen by over 60 percent since the 2000-2001 academic year. Average tuition, fees, room and board costs at four-year private universities have increased by $10,067, from $22,240 in the 2000-2001 academic year to $32,307 in the 2007-2008 academic year. Tuition, fees, room and board charges at four-year public colleges jumped from $8,439 for the 2000-2001 academic year to $13,589 for the 2007-2008 academic year an increase of $5,150, or 61 percent. The cost of a college education is rising faster than inflation and family income, but key federal tuition assistance programs such as the Pell Grant program have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of college. (College Board; Analysis of Department of Education data)" </p>
<p>And although family finances can be an asset, for a certain (and increasing proportion) of our population their income is no longer enough to counteract for these trends in educational costs. </p>
<p>And advocating responsibility is appropriate but this is not a condition which is exclusively limited or should be applied to just students and families. There is a social responsibility for the government, academe and financiers to not have permitted higher education to be corrupted into a parasitic entity which preys upon rather than serves the populations for which it was established.
And obviously they have abrogated that ethic and responsibility on an unprecedented scale. If it had been otherwise discussions such as this one would need never to have occurred. But they have, and are an part of an increasing hue and cry. </p>
<p>So if ethics are to be considered a element to the creation or solution to this problem, they need to be critically considered as to which group has caused the more detrimental effect. And that would not be students and families, as they have tried to do is what their culture expects them to do to succeed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, we do not need to reinvent the wheel; as with health care, there are plenty of good models currently in practice in Canada and Europe
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you are going to model education and health care on Canada and Europe, please look very carefully at the models you will be basing these changes on. </p>
<p>The vast majority of colleges will then be extremely large state-run univerisities with entry determined entirely by grades/testing. Say good bye to the "holistic" admissions approach and small liberal arts colleges. And if using the European model, no more college sports teams and extra curriculars funded by the university, instead huge classes with more students than seats, limited student housing, and most importantly, a sense of student entitlement that comes with the almost-free tuition which leads to things like the "perpetual student", who prolongs his studying for as long as possible, since he doesn't have to pay for it.</p>
<p>Similarly, contrast the hospital services available to most Americans with those the Europeans have. While I won't argue about the difference in overall health care quality, taking one step into a public European hospital and the way it is run would be a rude awakening for most. They are noticeably less well maintained and cleaned; it is very difficult to get a private room. Scheduling surgeries (not just elective) is MUCH more difficult due to the relative lack of resources.</p>
<p>I think it is of note, that none of the presidential candidates, when talking about their health care plans, would ever commit to saying we should do it like (insert favorite European nation or Canada), because they knew upon closer review, it would become clear that there would be some real sacrificing in choices and services. Instead, there is always this cherry picking of how one or another aspect is superior to the U.S. system.</p>
<p>The other aspect of using a "model", is that European countries and Canada are very different from the U.S. when it comes to population size and demographics. Even if you are convinced that one of those systems is a panacea, how is it likely to translate with so many varying factors?</p>
<p>Broetchen,
I don't want to hijack the thread, but you should try going into an American hospital without health insurance. Now that is going to be a rude awakening!!!</p>
<p>I see many folks who would prefer the European or Canadian way of government funding of higher education.. Let me give another perspective.</p>
<p>This funding has a cost! Canadians pay MUCH higher taxes at all levels. For example, Americans who earn about $350,000 are in the top tax bracket,which is currently 35% plus state rates. Canadians have a higher federal and provincial rates on all net incomes over $81,000. This is a HUGE difference.</p>
<p>In addition, Canadians have a sales tax that they call GST and PST that totals a whopping `15%+ on many items. </p>
<p>My point is that before we all rant about the huge college debts that have to be incurred for private schools and even public schools, consider the huge LIFETIME cost it would take to get this debt reduced. Moreover, unlike debt, this cost would be for LIFE for everyone!This would also be a lifetime cost for everyone even without college kids. </p>
<p>I guess if you are the one who benefits, you might, (just might) like it,but if you are the one whose ox is gored, this isn't a pleasant reality.</p>
<p>Forgive me for getting back on point, but I still believe choice is germain here. By the time a student is ready to enter college, many many choices have already been made. By that time, it may be too late to say "how can I pay for college".</p>
<p>"The vast majority of colleges will then be extremely large state-run univerisities with entry determined entirely by grades/testing. Say good bye to the "holistic" admissions approach and small liberal arts colleges. And if using the European model, no more college sports teams and extra curriculars funded by the university, and most importantly, a sense of student entitlement that comes with the almost-free tuition which leads to things like the "perpetual student", who prolongs his studying for as long as possible, since he doesn't have to pay for it" </p>
<p>Broetchen; Concerning the entry premised on grades testing perhaps that's not an entirely detrimental condition. At open admissions schools a certain percentage of those who are admitted in that manner are by no means ready to succeed at the collegiate level. Which leaves two alternatives, use the college as a remedial school to get them up to speed or to take their money with the foreknowledge they will fail. Holistic admissions policies at times can be irresponsible and often are little more than a bring them in but not get them through process. And since our system usually entails debt to the students admitted in such a manner how is that egalitarian in any true manner? It's a common practice for colleges to sell the persona of success, but when it cannot be done or the schools themselves do not deliver rarely does anyone ask what happens to the students left with the bill. </p>
<p>About 'no more college sports teams and extracurricular activities' are those the function of a university or college? It's a common practice for tuition and fees to be substantially raised for these activities and not all students wish to participate or to be billed to support. And at times the marketing obsession with 'go team go' directs money away from curricular support. For example one of our major institutions here in Colorado recently spent 15+ million on a recreational and sports center. But at the same time portions of their academic program have been shut down for lack of resources. Additionally how can such expenditures be justified in our current economic climate. Or in the very evident situation of upwards spiraling college costs and downward escalating federal and state support for higher education? </p>
<p>"instead huge classes with more students than seats, limited student housing," </p>
<p>Those are not conditions exclusive to the European system. And this is despite the massive amounts of money taken in by our current system (or rather taken from students and families in the form of debts). For example I worked at an institution at which for two years certain classes were run in what amounted to a hallway. And as far as limited student housing, in what sense, trophy dorms? I've seen some situations where the dorms and student centers are virtual resorts. But when the fun's over the students and families will spend the rest of their lives paying for such glitter. </p>
<p>"a sense of student entitlement that comes with the almost-free tuition which leads to things like the "perpetual student"," </p>
<p>As opposed to the sense of entitlement which has allowed edudebt corporations to increase fees almost exponentially, over bill the government more than a billion dollars, and to virtually dictate facets of educational policy to both colleges and the government. I'd rather have my tax money going to support a few eternal students than the aforementioned situation. Plus as long as colleges can rely on a font of funds deriving from student debt they not be inclined to ensure students can graduate in a timely manner or even worry about them ever graduating. Remember the 'lifelong learner" slogan so popular in academe? </p>
<p>"I see many folks who would prefer the European or Canadian way of government funding of higher education.. Let me give another perspective.</p>
<p>"This funding has a cost! Canadians pay MUCH higher taxes at all levels. For example, Americans who earn about $350,000 are in the top tax bracket,which is currently 35% plus state rates. Canadians have a higher federal and provincial rates on all net incomes over $81,000. This is a HUGE difference." </p>
<p>Taxguy; Our form of educational funding ALSO HAS A COST!!! This can be direct spending such as the massive government subsidies given to the educational loan corporations. When all this money could have gone directly for student and institutional support. Remember the millions redirected by the government to 'ensure liquidity' for student loan corporations. Or it can be such little matters as the massive over billings (now past a billion dollars), the tuition rises which are virtually ensured by our current system, or perhaps what is the heaviest burden which is the economic and social costs of engaging an entire generation of our most intelligent and ambitious people to what is often crushing debts.
As far as lifetime costs, our current system which allows virtual carte blanche for loan providers to enhance fees and denies student borrowers basic protections so many will spend the entirety of their working lives bound to these outrageous debts. And this is money which is lost to the general economy including such elements as cars and consumer goods. And so the social costs, may be hidden but in all likely hood are much greater than having to pay slightly more in taxes. </p>
<p>Additionally as Dr. Warren has so eloquently noted the escalation of educational costs (which are closely correlated to our current system) and the attendant debts are one of the major factors in the decline in status of the American middle class. And having educational costs and debt as a contributor to the decline of the middle classes is a lifetime and social costs this country cannot afford to bear. </p>
<p>Broetchen It's quite true that the Canadian and European countries are somewhat different in demographics. Amongst other things they cannot conceive of how we permit our students to be bound into often appalling debt loads for the simple desire to better themselves. And unlike our system, their higher education systems are not on the brink of being socially unable to be sustained.</p>
<p>taxguy: You are exaggerating the differences in U.S. and Canadian tax rates. According to a study from KPMG:
"an individual with income equal to US$100,000 will pay $28,780 in tax in Canada, $26,980 in the U.S."
[quote]
Top</a> Personal Income Tax Rates Falling Around the World - KPMG Survey - Yahoo! Finance
[/quote]
A previous poster, Starbright, a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen, posted earlier (post #24) on having paid the same amount in taxes in Canada and NYC.</p>
<p>Also, Americans historically paid a much higher rate in the top income bracket than they do now:
"In 1970, the top 1 percent of households paid an average of 47 percent of their income in federal taxes; under 2004 law, Piketty and Saez estimate they faced an average tax rate of just 30 percent"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>American tax policies have become less progressive in the last few decades. I think the top tax bracket here of 35% is currently too low. It has been historically much higher.
Paul Krugman: "Average tax rates on the richest 0.01 percent of Americans have been cut in half since 1970, while taxes on the middle class have risen."</p>
<p>Personally, I would be delighted to pay higher taxes in return for the benefits of higher education and health care that Canadians and Europeans receive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moreover, unlike debt, this cost would be for LIFE for everyone!This would also be a lifetime cost for everyone even without college kids.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you are alarmed about. Canadians seem to be doing fine and moreover, they are not suffering from the burden of a lifetime of educational debt or from lack of medical insurance as many are in the U.S.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, I would be delighted to pay higher taxes in return for the benefits of higher education and health care that Canadians and Europeans receive
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I mean this seriously, not facetiously at all: Have you considered moving to one of these countries? </p>
<p>Personally, I could have all of the "benefits" the German system has to offer, and I really appreciate the choices that one still has here.</p>
<p>broetchen: I have looked carefully at the Canadian and European models for education and health care and in my opinion they are superior to what we have here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The vast majority of colleges will then be extremely large state-run univerisities with entry determined entirely by grades/testing.
[/quote]
Sounds like what's currently in place for the vast majority of state universities in the U.S., so no real change there for most students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Say good bye to the "holistic" admissions approach and small liberal arts colleges.
[/quote]
I would love to say good-bye to this nonsense; "holistic" admissions was originally created to keep Jews out of the Ivy League, and I see no benefit in continuing. Universities all over the world are able to admit and educate students without knowing about their extracurriculars or reading personal essays. These same international students, educated at colleges in their own countries without the benefit of "holistic" admissions, are also filling up top American graduate schools and end up being quite competitive with American undergraduates. As far as SLAC's -- yes, they can be beneficial, and perhaps they could become part of a national educational system, but I have never seen one worth the tuition charged. You might be interested to read the faculty forums at The Chronicle of Higher Education, where SLAC faculty complain endlessly about the hand-holding expected by students at these schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if using the European model, no more college sports teams
[/quote]
I would be <em>thrilled</em> by this. I have never understood what sports has to do with the educational mission of a university. Europeans love their sports just as much as Americans and they seem very happy to cheer on their city teams, rather than college teams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if using the European model... huge classes with more students than seats
[/quote]
That sounds exactly like the expensive Ivy I attended.</p>
<p>
[quote]
limited student housing
[/quote]
Starbright addressed this previously:
[quote]
Almost all universities are public, and most citizens feel they are relatively interchangeable in quality. Thus it is much more common to not move away, but to go to the nearest public university in your province which can save a lot on costs (the American tradition of "moving away to college" is relatively unique to the US perhaps).
[/quote]
This "college experience" of dorm living is a luxury that needs to be re-evaluated. It is not part of the norm elsewhere in the world and room + board is a huge part of total college cost. If anything, I think that putting students together in buildings of 18-22 year-olds does not promote studying and makes alcohol abuse more likely and acceptable. Most of the world's students live with their families, often until marriage, and they seem to be doing fine. I am not arguing that dorm life isn't fun -- of course I liked it myself -- but it is not a requirement for a high-quality college education. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Similarly, contrast the hospital services available to most Americans with those the Europeans have
[/quote]
I have and it's the American system that comes up lacking. My French relatives would never consider living here because of the health care. By the way, it is very difficult to get a private room at most U.S. hospitals, too. I have absolutely no choice in health care -- employer funded HMO gives me no options as far as doctors or hospitals. Of course, if I were rich, I would have the "choice" to pay for medical care anywhere I want. But that "choice" is available to the wealthy anywhere in the world, including third-world countries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it is of note, that none of the presidential candidates, when talking about their health care plans, would ever commit to saying we should do it like (insert favorite European nation or Canada)
[/quote]
They would never suggest we should emulate another country out of fear -- fear of the outcry from the powerful medical insurance industry and fear of the xenophobic press for even suggesting that another country has done something better than us.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I am questioning whether this system -- which does benefit a few who are lucky with financial aid or are wealthy -- is worth the inequities and debt experienced by so many.
I am also questioning what exactly we are trying to buy here -- do we need to send our kids off to join the Ivy or SLAC "club" to which they were accepted, live in student housing on a lovely campus and bond, etc. Or are we trying to provide a high quality education to the largest number of students possible without the burden of loan slavery.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean this seriously, not facetiously at all: Have you considered moving to one of these countries?
[/quote]
Yes, of course. I can't because of husband's job and it is very difficult for a non-EU citizen to move to an EU country. And unfortunately, Canada's entry requirements are also very stringent.
As an American, I would love to see my country change direction. I realize it's pretty hopeless, but I know plenty of people who feel the same way I do. I also think this topic has never been adequately debated in public -- most Americans assume we have the best system for everything and true alternatives are rarely discussed in the mainstream media.</p>
<p>broetchen, I do respect your decision to remain here by choice (my father did the same.) But I also know plenty of Germans and other Europeans who were happy to return to their native countries. For the well-off, the U.S. can be a very good place. My focus is on the majority -- the middle class -- and I would argue that most are better off in Europe or Canada than here.</p>
<p>Anneroku, you make such sweeping generalizations its hard to follow your argument.</p>
<p>I would rather have a baby in many European countries than here in the US. I would rather get a liver transplant in the US than in Europe. So which country has better medical care? depends what your problem is.... but many of the tens of thousands of Europeans who come to the US every year (and not just the wealthy.... there are many humanitarian organizations who bring poor people here every year for life saving treatment) would argue your point. Cancer, transplants, prosthetic devices, serious infectious diseases... the waiting list of foreigners trying to get to Sloan Kettering, Mayo, Boston Childrens, Mass General-- it's huge.</p>
<p>Why you think that middle class Americans are slaves to their loans confounds me as well. All over America, perfectly ordinary people (dentists, school teachers, engineers, speech pathologists) are paying off the loans which made their professional lives possible. Yes- everyone would rather spend every nickel in their paycheck. But financing an education seems to me a better option than telling talented HS kids whose families can't write the entire tuition check "no, you can go off to a vocational program".</p>
<p>I've written before about my cousin in Europe who works in a commercial bakery decorating cakes. She'd be almost done with an engineering program here in the US.... but her educational system takes the tippy top math/science students and puts them in an elite program- and the good, solid math science students are told to study book-keeping and get a certificate which will make them employable. So I look at kids I know here in the US getting degrees in engineering from Northeastern and Rutgers and SUNY and then getting interesting jobs designing bridges or figuring out how to alter traffic patterns in downtown Chicago and I think that despite its flaws... our educational system is better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This "college experience" of dorm living is a luxury that needs to be re-evaluated. It is not part of the norm elsewhere in the world and room + board is a huge part of total college cost. If anything, I think that putting students together in buildings of 18-22 year-olds does not promote studying and makes alcohol abuse more likely and acceptable. Most of the world's students live with their families, often until marriage, and they seem to be doing fine. I am not arguing that dorm life isn't fun -- of course I liked it myself -- but it is not a requirement for a high-quality college education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, and there are many here in the U.S. who go to community college, live at home, then transfer to a state school. Augment this lifestyle with a job and some shrewd budgeting, and I don't think that this option would necessarily create "college loan slaves".</p>
<p>And this option is a choice for many motivated students. One of the many choices... I agree with you re. the deplorable cozy arrangements colleges had with loan companies, or the lack of wisdom of someone borrowing vast sums to attend a prestige uni. But nobody is forced to do this, and there are a lot of alternatives around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Similarly, contrast the hospital services available to most Americans with those the Europeans have. While I won't argue about the difference in overall health care quality, taking one step into a public European hospital and the way it is run would be a rude awakening for most. They are noticeably less well maintained and cleaned; it is very difficult to get a private room. Scheduling surgeries (not just elective) is MUCH more difficult due to the relative lack of resources.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've said it before and I'll say it again... crappy healthcare is still better than no healthcare (which is what our country gives to most people who can't afford private insurance). </p>
<p>People in the countries you're talking about often have 'private' healthcare insurance, such as BUPA in the UK, to get the perks you talk about (speedy service, private rooms...) so what you're really comparing is what the average joe in Europe gets without health insurance, which is something, vs what they get in the US, which is nothing.</p>
<p>I lived in the UK for several years (I'm a US citizen) and from day one of arriving I was given free healthcare... in fact one of the first things I was pushed into doing was going to the local physician for a physical and to get all signed up. Had I broken my arm or something, I would have just walked into the nearest ER and would have been fixed up for free no questions asked. If I was in the US without insurance and broke my arm, I'd be looking at some massive bills.</p>
<p>"Why you think that middle class Americans are slaves to their loans confounds me as well. All over America, perfectly ordinary people (dentists, school teachers, engineers, speech pathologists) are paying off the loans which made their professional lives possible. Yes- everyone would rather spend every nickel in their paycheck. But financing an education seems to me a better option than telling talented HS kids whose families can't write the entire tuition check "no, you can go off to a vocational program"" </p>
<p>Blossom; Concerning the ordinary people (our doctors, school teachers, engineers and speech pathologists) not all is well with this contingent in regards to the student loan problem. Yes many are able to pay off these loans (eventually) but a fairly substantial number cannot do so. And for various reasons, including self interest of the loan corporations and their shills in the government the numbers of those who cannot pay have been grossly underestimated. </p>
<p>Under recent guidelines defaults were only effectively tracked for two years beyond graduation, and given recent proposals for better tracking and assessment these rates are expected to rise substantially. According to Higher Education Watch (01/08)</p>
<p>"The change, proposed by Rep. Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), is designed to make the cohort default rate a more realistic assessment of how individual institutions (and lenders) are faring in keeping student borrowers on track to repayment, both to gauge students indebtedness and potential failure by colleges in ensuring that their students are getting an affordable and valuable education.
Based on previous studies and reports, lobbyists and others estimated that adding a third year to the time period in which defaults were tracked could increase default rates by an average of 60 percent" </p>
<p>And especially given the economic tragedies of the past year it's very probable that default rates are going to be much higher. Currently the overall student debt in this country is about 562, 668, 250, 000+ dollars (Student Debt Alert 01/05/08) A massive number which the ordinary people may not be able to reconcile in a rapidly collapsing economy especially when such as the subprime mortgage mess is factored into the situation. Currently there are some 1.35 million homes in foreclosure, and those which are delinquent are now at the 20% point (Money CNN 12/05/08) Obviously when these pressures are coming down on ordinary people its a matter of time that for many, making payments on student loans will be impossible. </p>
<p>And when this does occur our teachers, doctors and etc will find themselves in an impossible situation. For years the edudebt industry has bought its way into the government and Congressional offices with the clear intent to strip any effective consumer rights from student borrowers. Reorganization is not allowed, refinancing is a very limited option which is now virtually impossible and draconian powers to seize incomes, abuse borrowers and even to seize government pensions have been established as a result of these sweetheart policies. And as such our doctors, teachers and etc, have no alternative but to pay whatever outrageous tolls the edudebt industry demands. If they cannot they are effectively ruined, having no rights or recourse. There have even been proposals to deny license renewal to professionals which fall behind on these payments. And some states have even considered the denial of drivers licenses to those who have had difficulty paying. </p>
<p>As such our schoolteacher, doctor etc contingent are not in a position to do anything but pay the edudebt people their inflated amounts, no matter what other economic problems arise as a result. They have no other choice. </p>
<p>And the situation can be much worse than indicated by the dry numbers, because of the stripping of basic consumer rights our teacher and pathologist can find themselves in an impossible situation. The researcher and writer A. Collinge has made that abundantly clear in his work. According to Collinge "Whats more, Sallie now has collection powers that would make a mobster envious (to quote Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren). People who fall behind are now subject to wage garnishment, income tax seizure, withholding of professional certifications, even Social Security seizure, in addition to the standard damage to their credit records and other collection activities. Sallie no longer has to negotiate. The penalties, fees, and interest stick, regardless of the financial condition of the borrower. Stories of Aids patients signing over their social security checks, nurses unable to practice in their field, even suicides have been documented, and the problem appears to be worsening as legislation makes student loans even more oppressive for borrowers, and profitable for lenders." </p>
<p>So not all is well with our teacher, doctor, pathologist and engineer down the street. And looking at the matter from the small scale perspective of talking to students and their parents-they are often uneasy about the effect of obtaining an education upon their own future. Our society has established a situation where those who might become such as our teachers down the street are quite terrified that they may be making the wrong decision and condemning themselves and their children.
And speaking from a personal perspective not all can be well with our future teachers et al. Not when I and many of my colleagues have had to talk former students away from desperate acts because the costs of their profession cannot be reconciled with what the colleges promised or what positions can be obtained in our currently disasterous economy. </p>
<p>"And this option is a choice for many motivated students. One of the many choices... I agree with you re. the deplorable cozy arrangements colleges had with loan companies, or the lack of wisdom of someone borrowing vast sums to attend a prestige uni. But nobody is forced to do this, and there are a lot of alternatives around." </p>
<p>Broetchen; I would have absolutely no dispute with your contention of the deplorable and incestuous arrangements between colleges and the loan companies. They are incredibly pervasive, to the extent that in many cases it is difficult for faculty to even comment on the economic costs and ethics of the issue. (Although certain areas of my school their promotional materials keep disappearing, I wonder whose doing that?)
But the choice in the matter is limited, because what funds which had once gone to non-loan aid such as Pells have been increasingly directed into subsidies for the edudebt corporations. And we're talking about massive amounts of resources which could have gone to genuinely ensuring students did have a choice besides miring into debt to attend higher education.
Our understanding of Holistic admission however was somewhat different. I was using the term as it refers to open admission wherein examinations and transcripts are not the primary consideration for entry. In the other meaning of the term, that would refer to the inclusion or preference for outside activities being a seminal aspect of admissions. This can be somewhat subjective if these activities are outside of the field or major for which the student is applying to enter. How exactly would say being a member of a boy scout dance troop or a social organization be relevant to certain fields? </p>
<p>"Agreed, and there are many here in the U.S. who go to community college, live at home, then transfer to a state school. Augment this lifestyle with a job and some shrewd budgeting, and I don't think that this option would necessarily create "college loan slaves"</p>
<p>Broetchen this is true to an extent, and with our current economic debacle the number of students making such arrangements is expected to expand. However for those who go to these institutions and remain in the lower echelons of the economy student loan debt can be disasterous proportionally to their limited income. It's not only the doctors who are having problems. People like radiological assistants, LPN's and such are having major problems as are those who attend schools for vocational trades (which incidentally have a much higher default rate than the University contingent) But since these populations lack access to the media, what is happening to them is not covered to any great extent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People in the countries you're talking about often have 'private' healthcare insurance, such as BUPA in the UK, to get the perks you talk about (speedy service, private rooms...) so what you're really comparing is what the average joe in Europe gets without health insurance, which is something, vs what they get in the US, which is nothing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In Germany having the private, extra health care insurance permits you to have access to these things, as well --- THEORETICALLY, but because the resources are scarce, even though a patient is entitled to it, it often just isn't available. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I've said it before and I'll say it again... crappy healthcare is still better than no healthcare (which is what our country gives to most people who can't afford private insurance).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not accurate, unless you have some special definition of the word "healthcare". I will not argue that it isn't problematic not to have health insurance, but in many states, those without it are entitled to state-provided healthcare, especially for children. Also many avail themselves of the e.r. option (no, this is not the preferred way to dispense healthcare, yes, there have been problems with people being turned away), in fact, so many uninsured, often undocumented residents access healthcare without insurance, that it poses a problem for many states.</p>
<p>To say that the U.S. gives NO healthcare to those without PRIVATE insurance, that would include government workers on the state and federal level, is just plain false.</p>
<p>"That is not accurate, unless you have some special definition of the word "healthcare". I will not argue that it isn't problematic not to have health insurance, but in many states, those without it are entitled to state-provided healthcare, especially for children. Also many avail themselves of the e.r. option (no, this is not the preferred way to dispense healthcare, yes, there have been problems with people being turned away), in fact, so many uninsured, often undocumented residents access healthcare without insurance, that it poses a problem for many states." </p>
<p>Broetchen Quite true although quite peripheral to a discussion about college loan debts. Excepting to state that many will elect not to get medical treatment because of the economic burden of 'college loan slavery'. </p>
<p>And to more directly address the health care issue in regards to those who have no insurance, yes treatment may be available but often it is of such abysmal quality that it can be problematic. For example IHS (Indian health services) often refuses to provide basic pain medications, and will routinely delay essential treatment until they can get other systems to handle the problem and as such require people who do not have the means to do so go to remote cities for aid.</p>