<p>It seemed to me that Jonathan is proud of the decisions and position he is currently in–different perspective (he has a home, wife, 3-year old kid and some money toward 529 for the child, as well as no-interest on the loan he only pays $69/month on for a $160K balance). I believe he feels the good jobs he’s had since he got his BU degree are proof/affirming that his choice to finance the remainder of his college costs was a good one.</p>
<p>Anyone could have created a cc account using this name…just saying.</p>
<p>True that anyone could have posted as Jonathan–does it really matter? The perspective the person stated is not atypical, I believe. I know another young man who graduated from law school with 6-figure debt who is married and bought a house with his wife in a very nice neighborhood. He and his wife also recently bought brand new cars as well. They are both working as attorneys and have not yet started their family, though. They are now both 30 years old.</p>
<p>The part I don’t understand is this from post #6:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>BU is a perfectly respectable top 100 national university, but I think Jonathan has delusions of grandeur about its quality or ranking compared to many other schools, including some state schools. USNews ranks BU #53, which puts in behind no fewer than six different UCs, for example. </p>
<p>His fine BU education may well be a big contributor to his career success, but he could have had just as good an education and been just as successful for a lot less money at some of the schools that are of similar quality and ranking as BU.</p>
<p>Well, that is why I asked which “state school”.</p>
<p>(The other thing I wonder about is what the $18,000 used four year old sedan mentioned in the testimony to the Senate was. During that time frame, I was seeing ads for new cars as cheap as $9,999.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like a good time to me! :D</p>
<p>Since he listed his address in his testimony as PA, if that was where he was a resident, they have a number of schools, including PSU. In 2009, we bought a 4-year old sedan for $13,500.</p>
<p>I have been skimming this thread. Lots of disturbing posts.</p>
<p>This really is not about personal responsibility or jumping al over the guy who testified. His story and how he dealt with debt are hardly the point either. The point is having a population under crushing debt to get an education is not good for anyone or the economy.</p>
<p>Instead of the OP graduating college and having to put years of work into loan repayment, he could have bought a house, and started investing into the economy rather than just throwing that money back at banks. It is bad for the economy to have our educated and brightest citizens shackled to debt instead of having disposable income to interject into the economy. Instead it goes back into to banks for them to sit on or reinvest into putting more people into debt.</p>
<p>Criticizing his personal choices and how he may have handled it better is to miss the point completely. All other industrialized countries have much better education systems as far as access and lack of debt. Because investing in education, for those who have the aptitude and ability, is a very wise public good.</p>
<p>Student loans are about to become the next bubble burst created by Wall St predatory practices. This is not a result of poor personal responsibility. This is the exact result of poor public policy.</p>
<p>Yes, the system has many problems, but as parents, it is our duty to try to work with the system that exists rather than rail against it and encourage our kids to work within the sytem.</p>
<p>There are many problems with student loans and skyrocketing education costs in the US, but as many posts point out, there ARE alternatives–NO ONE FORCED the loans on this young man, nor forced additional debt or a child on him.</p>
<p>Yes, there will be consequences because of all of these loans. There will also be consequences for all the medical debt being incurred because that system is in need of repair as well. Even if we agree that there is significant room for improvement in public policy, most of us are doing or best to make choices WITHIN the system we have.</p>
<p>Jonathan A. did what was logical and economically good at the time. We did the same thing and in some ways, took advantage of the situation to the extreme. The one mistake that I did was not borrowing more, and I have said this many times on CC.</p>
<p>Before you criticize, you should be aware of the terms of his loans. The terms were very attractive then and in the case of the government guaranteed loans better today than 4,5,6 years ago.</p>
<p>I’d like to know how he managed to get a mortgage if he was so deeply in debt already. </p>
<p>Another instance of the bank saying “you can afford this” and the customer saying, “Okay then!”</p>
<p>Berkleyorbust</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that is what I would like to clarify with Johnathan. What was the purpose of his testimony, and what does he think needs to happen? I was asking because he said that he would not do anything differently related to borrowing money for his education. So what needs to be done to correct the “problems”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are student loans created by Wall Street or are they result of poor public policy? Last time I heard, Wall Street firms do not make loans to the general public.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, that is exactly what he did. And he’s not “just throwing that money back at banks.” At $67 dollars a month, his repayment plan is not causing him one iota of pain and it’s not exactly making the banks rich.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a fallacy that anyone must be “shackled to debt” in order to get a good education. Any “bright citizen” who doesn’t have the funds to acquire a degree from a prestigious university can nevertheless get an outstanding education at any number of very good public universities and go on to professional success without borrowing a fortune. It’s only the perception that one “must” go to certain schools in order to be a success later which fuels this ridiculous amount of borrowing going on. There are actually a fair amount of “bright citizens” who get this and are graduating from very good universities with little or no debt.</p>
<p>I think that student loan debt is a very significant problem for a lot of people, but the person who testified to the Senate is a poor exemplar of someone who is struggling with it.</p>
<p>First, at 25, according to his testimony, he was the Director of Operations for “Calle Financial Network, an investment advisory business.” He had an undergraduate degree in Business Administration. Yet he claims that he was unable to understand the terms of his loan, which seem relatively straightforward. Perhaps the cap was misrepresented to him orally, but it seems fairly likely that the paperwork stated the cap correctly. If not, he would have grounds for a lawsuit, I should think.</p>
<p>Perhaps community colleges operate differently in Pennsylvania, or perhaps Avidan was using the term “community college” in a loose sense to mean a college to which he could commute. However, my university will not accept any credits gained at a community college after a student has reached junior standing–which was the case for Avidan. Further, the idea that there were no less expensive choices between BU and a local community college seems far-fetched, as many posters have pointed out.</p>
<p>Personally, I am affronted by Avidan’s belief that he “deserved” a better interest rate (at 25) than the one that he received based in large part on his parents’ credit rating, because he had a credit score of 720 (presumably based on a record about 3-5 years long, during which he was allowing the balance on his college loans to grow).</p>
<p>Even projecting back to 2007, $700 a month was not the difference between renting a one-bedroom apartment and buying a home where we live. It seems like rushing things to expect to buy a house at age 25–a poster above has pointed out the median age of first-time home buyers, which is considerably higher.</p>
<p>The Senate testimony seems to have worked out very well for Avidan, who is apparently currently paying $69 a month on the college debt–perhaps an adjustment made in response to his testimony? He has bought a home. He may also benefit from further steps to ease the student loan burden in the future.</p>
<p>Have I misunderstood something here?</p>
<p>Good summary.</p>
<p>Buying a home may or may not have been a good move.</p>
<p>Even if by some remote chance the person who came back on claiming to be Avidan really isnt him, it is very easy to find out who the real guy is. The info posted here is correct. His information is on google plus (its public), and what has been posted here matches that. What I find hard to swallow, even if it is fiscally sound and a good financiaal plan (I defer to others more knowledgeable about this) is what seems to be a lack of ownership of the massive education debt he and his wife have (150K I believe he said). They aren’t making any effort to pay down the principal. Instead, they are taking on more debt with home ownership and investing. My worry is that he will potentially become one of the many who will default on his education loans. I hope I am wrong.</p>
<p>Or his mortgage. We will have more people talk about “Wall Street predatory practices” (which is really not WS) and how an unsophisticated person was taken advantage by his bank.</p>
<p>What irks me is that Jonathan’s house of cards is likely to come tumbling down at some point, leaving the rest of us to deal with the problems that causes. If choices like his could have their costs isolated to people who choose those kinds of risks, fine – but what we’re very clearly seeing is that reckless choices like that all too often end up costing the rest of us a lot. I certainly hope my D doesn’t end up having to pay for Jonathan’s excesses. The “I deserve to have an expensive education,” seems to have as a corollary, “and the rest of you suckers ought to be happy to pay for it.” Well, I’m not.</p>