<p>What was it again..... oh yes, student debt.</p>
<p>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz</p>
<p>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz</p>
<p>zzzzzzzzzzzzzz</p>
<p>god..can you be anymore tedious?</p>
<p>thinking about NOT sending my kid to college.</p>
<p>I agree with those who state there's 'choice' regarding the topic of debt. There are many choices as to which college to attend from very expensive privates to low cost state schools to (in California at least) extremely inexpensive CC then state, whether to live on-campus in expensive housing or live at home and commute, whether to take advantage of ROTC/Academy/other service opportunities, etc. If someone through their own choice chooses an option requiring them to make payments later in life I don't see why they're complaining. I think it comes down to one's sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>I know not all states have the same college system as California but here it'd be fairly easy to actually pay for college as one goes. An example would be SDSU at roughly $5K per year - a sum easily attainable working part time during the year and full time in summers. This would be even less expensive by attending a CC for 2 years then transferring. If they're willing to earn more, use some savings, or take a small amount in loans they could commute to a UC which is generally regarded as a world-class university system. </p>
<p>For those attending med school, they have a relatively high income (well-deserved IMO) with which to pay off the loans yet even with the high loan payoff they seem to be doing okay financially by their 40s (I'm generalizing).</p>
<p>This discussion really is similar to the other thread as to what's 'worth it'. Is it worth spending > $200K for a poliSci or history degree from USC versus $20K for the same degree from a CalState? That's an individual choice a family must make but there seem to be plenty of them making it.</p>
<p>The problem is the concept of choice in this matter could be chimerical when the structure of the system is considered. Largely what has developed is a form of corporate socialism wherein massive amounts of governmental resources and that of students and families is redirected to and through corporate financiers. And many of these resources, such as the government 'liquidity' payments to these companies could have just as easily gone to direct support of students and colleges. Were it not of course for insider decisions being made without proper debate and by ignoring public concerns. </p>
<p>Additionally this system has largely undermined the preexisting systems such as those which Senator Pell tried to establish, which had substantial support by the public. A support which our current system certainly does not possess. </p>
<p>And I don't recall choosing redirect my tax money to these corporations or writing to my representatives to support the situation of more than a billion dollars being over billed to the US government by these companies. </p>
<p>So yes, one may have the choice of where, what, and when to go to college, to a limited degree. But as a country and a people our choices in what manner of system by which we fund higher education seems to have died long ago in the morally polluted atmosphere of the lobbyists office or a Congressional luncheon. </p>
<p>In that regard perhaps the whole concept using choice as a defense for our current system is problematic. The core issues and problems are a paradigm where those choices have been largely taken from us.</p>
<p>Public funding of the medical and educational systems of Europe and Canada has been discussed here in contrast with the American system, which entitles citizens to neither. You will not find Europeans or Canadians taking on educational debt or going bankrupt due to medical expenses, or fearful of losing their medical insurance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
In Europe everyone has medical insurance. We have millions uninsured, mostly because their employers do not offer it, they are unemployed, or cannot afford it. This is the issue, not the number or quality of specialists. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the waiting list of foreigners trying to get to Sloan Kettering, Mayo, Boston Childrens, Mass General-- it's huge.
[/quote]
Most of these foreigners are the wealthy, particularly from third world countries, not Europeans. As an American on an HMO, I also have no access to these hospitals -- my HMO would not allow it. I'd have to get on the same waiting list as the foreigners and pay out of pocket. Since I could not afford that, it is a choice that exists, but is not open to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
What you are describing was true 25 years ago, but the cost of college and the amount of educational debt has been skyrocketing for many years, so much so that many borrowers may never be able to repay what they owe. Read the article at the beginning of the thread, or follow the news, which is full of similar stories. This situation simply doesn't exist in the countries we've been discussing.</p>
<p>Final post on this from me, I am concerned for jaguar's health ; )</p>
<p>@ Atana
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A prime example of government sponsored health care at work -- this very type of situation is common place in Germany.</p>
<p>Enough said.</p>
<p>"What you are describing was true 25 years ago, but the cost of college and the amount of educational debt has been skyrocketing for many years, so much so that many borrowers may never be able to repay what they owe. Read the article at the beginning of the thread, or follow the news, which is full of similar stories. This situation simply doesn't exist in the countries we've been discussing.' </p>
<p>anneroku. Quite accurate, many people assume that the conditions which held true when they went to school are still extant and they obviously are not. The cost of college escalating along with often crushing debts was the partial result of three conditions. First was the effective privatization of student loans such as the move in the late 70's to take what had been a working system and transfer it to the profit sector.</p>
<p>And the second was the long process wherein consumer protections were stripped from these loans. And that got started with a massive disinformation campaign about defaults, remember the stories about the doctor, lawyer etc who walked away from his loans. The irony is at the time the default rate was much lower than it is currently. The other irony is the edudebt industry, having been given carte blanche, often sets their policies to ensure defaults. They get to collect the surety money from the government and can continue to harass the student, their families and to seize wages, government pensions and etc. They have no good faith interest in trying to work with troubled borrowers because they can make a killing by not doing so. Additionally it has been a common practice to report loans under deferment as remediation of defaulted loans when payment begins again-they do this because our government provides them incentive money.And since the CEO's of these companies have admitted collections is a major component to their profits, and they have massive collections subsidiaries it's clear where their actual intent and efforts reside. So all the propaganda notwithstanding these companies do not exist to make educational opportunity possible or affordable. </p>
<p>Third is that once the loan model was established it became a massive flow of money to private corporations and a corrupting influence on colleges in regards to their impetus to keep the costs down. The corporations in the edudebt industry obviously had no interest in making higher education costs affordable or equitable. An example is the 220 some percent fee increases by SMC, they continue this practice today. Their recent partial departure from certain aspects of the student funding industry where only because they knew they'd broken what their own market could sustain and they were trying to blackmail the government into providing yet another liquidity payment. </p>
<p>And obviously when the costs of college were transferred to students and families academe lost the direct context of the social burden of such a system-once a student is out what happens to them disappears from collegiate consciousness. In addition the cutting of direct support left colleges in the moral bind of needing funds to continue operations but effectively having to kowtow to these corporations to get these funds. </p>
<p>Broetchen, Actually I used IHS as an example to illustrate that for the marginalized populations in our country health care was not as accessible as you had implied. And there is nothing equivalent to the debacle that is IHS outside of third and second world countries, and obviously Germany is not one of these countries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A prime example of government sponsored health care at work -- this very type of situation is common place in Germany.
[/quote]
Actually, IHS is a prime example of government sponsored health care in the U.S., where it is not supported, or adequately funded. This is not what national health care looks like anywhere in Europe.</p>
<p>"A report ... in the Annals of Internal Medicine, an ACP journal, details how the U.S. lags behind other industrialized countries in areas ranging from infant mortality to per-capita costs.
'We're last among the industrialized countries of the world in terms of providing access to health care,' says David Dale, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle and president of the ACP."
Doctors</a>' Group Wants Insurance for All</p>
<p>Why play the victim and raise conspiracy scenarios? If you don't want a college loan, don't get one. If you decide to get one, get the best deal you can and be smart about it. If someone makes a decision to take on a huge debt in college loans for a non-lucrative career that'll saddle them with large payments for a long time - that was their decision. It was likely a poor decision but it was their decision nonetheless.</p>
<p>It all seems to depend on which side of the fence you view the issue from. But to just condemn the entire system because it does not work for you, seems a bit self centered. I am sure it may not work for some people, I do know it worked for us and quite a few of the people that we know. It seems that many of the people who are not happy, are people that did not plan in time. But then again, that is just my opinion.</p>
<p>The problem is the system does not work. We may have adapted to it because it's been around so long. Essentially what we've developed with the US educational finance system is a form of moral and economic syphilis, it hurts but we've forgotten how it got started. </p>
<p>The irony is that this system cannot function for too much longer even for the companies which benefit from it. They have pressured many of their clientele too close to the brink and soon no amount of government sanctioned coercion is going to work. Or many people will simply opt out of college rather than get involved with them. Plus looking at the financial reports of some of these companies it's very clear some are massively over leveraged. After all, amongst the earliest of the recent massive bailouts was actually for the student loan industry. </p>
<p>And its not a matter of conspiracy scenarios, information from august sources like the "Chronicle of Higher Education" and Higher Ed Watch" is hardly the "Weekly World News". </p>
<p>Although Bat Boy might have been able to come up with a more functional education funding system than the one we have. Or at least more entertaining...</p>
<p>I work for international company. Sometime we have our Europian collegues working in US office for several months. They usually have their immideate family with them. The office is located in one of the most economically depressed regions of the USA and has always been this way. None of the Euoropians have any desire to go back home, although they must at the end of their stay. My question is why they like it here in the US so much more, even leaving their friends and extended families behind at home? I am talking about well educated professionals. i know so many professional immigrants who consider themselves very lucky to be here and raise their families here. Why? Should not we listen more to this people who have actual experience in both systems vs somebody who have theories about another side that they never had a chance to experience?</p>
<p>MiamiDAP - Having lived in Canada, Europe and Australia, I absolutely agree with your post. As I previously posted, it all seems to depend on which side of the fence you view the situation from. In theory, the grass may seem to be greener on the other side - but in practicality that is hardly the case. Although nothing is perfect, I would still rather take our system than any of the alternatives.</p>
<p>^ ^
that's what I have been saying, thank you!</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, the Europeans you mention are comparing the actual living conditions in the US vs. their country of origin: housing, schools, climate, shopping, services, entertainment, social life, etc. You would have to look at their actual conditions here and abroad to figure out why they like it better here.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, these professionals being temporary residents, they don't have to worry about any of the economic issues of the American system that are being discussed here, such as paying for college, access to affordable medical care or retirement and social security. They also enjoy paying less taxes during their stay in the US, without that having any negative effect on their access to the above services once they get back home. Of course they like it here!</p>
<p>Atana- methinks you need to get out of the ivory tower a bit and meet "real folk".</p>
<p>Yes, paying off loans is a pain in the neck. For people with poor financial management skills, poor health, or bad luck in love/choice of life partner, paying off loans can be hellish. For most people who plan well, are able to work in their chosen field, and are realistic about their capacity to take on more debt (consumer loans, mortgages, car payments, etc.) financing an education with loans is both do-able and possible- as the millions of people who faithfully mail in their payments every month can attest.</p>
<p>Yes, the media loves to write about the kid with 100K in undergrad loans working at a fast food restaurant, or the married couple with 250K in combined loans who are defaulting on their mortgage. But in my own community (northeast, high real estate costs, high taxes) most of the 20 and 30 somethings who are settling here are paying off their loans and still able to afford a roof over their heads and food on the table.</p>
<p>A neighbor of mine who financed both undergrad (private) and grad (public) with loans has just bought a house. I am so happy and proud; she has a recent master's in special ed and teaches in a public school system. She admitted that although the loans that both she and H are carrying meant that they bought "less house" than they might have hoped, they are ahead of their life's plan by a couple of years mainly due to falling home prices here, very low mortgage rates, and their overall credit worthiness (no consumer debt, drive two very old junker cars). They also have contributed less than they'd have hoped to for their retirement, but since they both get traditional pensions as public employees, they felt that paying off the loans and buying a house was a good decision given what's going on in the financial markets.</p>
<p>So one man's meat is another man's poison. All the horrific scenarios that you describe create opportunities... and not for the wealthy- my friend is the first in her family to attend college, let alone grad school-- and their families are so proud of them. The secret? No consumer debt, live frugally, make getting a career track job and paying down the loans your A priority.... and choose your college wisely. The grad school she attended was not the most prestigious place around, but she researched thoroughly and discovered it was a "feeder" program for where she wanted to work, and the combination of low sticker price, even with 100% loans and forgone income when she wasn't working full time, meant she can live nicely even with ed loans.</p>
<p>Blossom,
First my little space in the ivory tower does entail knowing what happens to our students when they finish within that system. And many find themselves living a substandard life because the costs and the debt for school, even when they have managed carefully, is a major portion of their income. As a result the current generation of students lives a very different lifestyle from those of only a short time ago. People who went to school in the 1970's often have no concept of how much has changed. And college as a credible social system or as a means to maintain or join the middle class will not survive if these conditions persist. I suggest you read or listen to the essays and lecture of Dr. Warren about these detrimental conditions. </p>
<p>Additionally my job in the ivory towers makes it easy to observe how many resources which could support students and families are funneled through and into the educational finance industry. Many of the schools I have worked at are reliant on adjunct professors or have problems providing proper facilities or equipment. </p>
<p>But there doesn't seem to be a problem providing massive and sometimes illegal subsidies for the educational finance industry. The recent 1.7 billion dollars over billing of the US government by the educational finance industry would have at 6000 per year provided a years tuition for about 240,000 students. Or would have been able to hire 4000 more professors at 40,000 yearly. Or could have provided colleges with 2,833,333 some computers. And to cap it all off these companies have lobbied quite successfully to ensure that any competition which may provide better rates or services are kept out of 'their' government sponsored arena of finances. Or is the concern about misdirected resources and outright corruption limited to those observing it all from the ivory towers? </p>
<p>Additionally the undue levies of the educational finance industry are detrimental to communities which desperately need educated people to work within them. However they cannot afford to do so because of the excessive debts levied upon them by the educational finance industry. I ran a program for a tribal government for almost a decade, and it was very difficult for them to keep teachers, medical personnel, or science and technology people because these people could not afford to stay and serve...even if they wished to do so because the educational debt issue precluded their remaining. And as I've repeatedly noted the NEA is very worried that the effects of this industry could result in major shortages of teachers. </p>
<p>And finally these companies are massively over leveraged insofar what they have done with the profits obtained via their involvement in a governmental derived business. At times their financial conduct has been little more than irresponsible and reckless speculation. And like the other financial services bailouts when another payment to these companies to is made to 'ensure liquidity' it will raise the deficient and ultimately come out of our taxes, or our kids taxes, or our grand kids taxes. And alas the information supporting this contention does not come from the ivory towers, it came from financial news and corporate reports. </p>
<p>Also I have operated private businesses and worked in politics so yes I have come out of the Ivory towers. But perhaps esteemed Blossom I could ask you to spend more time within them so you could understand exactly how detrimental the effect of this industry has been upon the ability of the ivory towers to serve their communities rather than being a entity which is increasingly preying upon those same communities because of the need to associate with educational financiers. </p>
<p>SamK "Be that as it may, these professionals being temporary residents, they don't have to worry about any of the economic issues of the American system that are being discussed here, such as paying for college, access to affordable medical care or retirement and social security. They also enjoy paying less taxes during their stay in the US, without that having any negative effect on their access to the above services once they get back home. Of course they like it here!" </p>
<p>Quite true, and the reverse is occurring within the academic field. It's an increasingly common phenomenon for those who work in education to leave the US and not to come back. They find that they can apply their educations better working for NGO's or other countries and not have the educational finance industry at their throats. Some will never return to the US because of this issue. And with my generation of academics there is a substantial number who have taught out of the country, and would just as likely leave again if the US economy declines or the educational financiers become too obnoxious. Essentially what we are creating is a brain drain, and if you look back into the 60's that condition was detrimental to the Brits and will certainly be detrimental to the United States. Although it will certainly benefit Canada, Mexico, China, Mongolia, Japan, Australia, and the EU.</p>
<p>Not just ZZZZZZZZZ. Some people never stop whining about what they should get for free. Just let someone else pay for it. Where is my Rolls, by the way? Will there be a bailout for me to buy one? Oh, I forgot, an education at an elite expensive PRIVATE college is an entitlement, but not a fancy car, yet. BTW, my college, the one I took out loans to attend, and paid off in full, is now one of the ones going without loan requirements for some. Now I am one of its benefactors. </p>
<p>Now, where can I get that government sponsored Ipod, cell phone, internet service, etc. ..</p>
<p>"Now, where can I get that government sponsored Ipod, cell phone, internet service, etc. .' </p>
<p>As opposed to a government sponsored 1.7 billion over billing, in an industry which only exists because of that government. And doesn't exist in other countries which have a standard of living equal or better than ours? </p>
<p>I'd be happy to provide you a Ipod, cell phone or internet service with my tax dollars, it would be much cheaper and probably benefit the economy more...</p>