<h1>5 Muff:
[quote]
You can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy.
[/quote]
</h1>
<p>And, if you still owe when you turn 65, your loans wills be deducted from your Social Security. Imagine that. If this were not a common occurrence there would be no need for such a rule.</p>
<p>There is only one way to get your student loans discharged without paying, but it is not an attractive option.</p>
<p>If you become an investment banker, sure I think you could handle the debt. But anything else, you'll be on a slippery slope.</p>
<p>FFB, the lifestyle that goes with IB leads to the more you make the more you spend lifestyle. if one has a lesser earning potential it is suicide.
I worked with a top cardiothoracic surgeon who was making 250K + in the mid 80's, he was complaining how much it cost for a nanny, his lifestyle required a nanny, she was at a cost of 30K a year back then live in. </p>
<p>Be financially frugal.</p>
<p>And I bet JustAMomOf4 and all these other bored, sanctimonious housewives have no personal experience with college debt. Thanks for trying to help; I'll find out for myself, since you can't realize that I want to know the truth, not something you heard from Oprah.</p>
<p>I was gonna say- Since you already know everything , why not save your money and skip college?</p>
<p>But you might peruse the number of parents on the board who are still paying their own college loans.</p>
<p>AnotherAngryTeen, you sound like AnotherSnottyTeen- you asked a question, don't disparage the answers you don't want to hear. Go ahead take $200k in loans, we don't care, we won't be paying it back.</p>
<p>I only had $5k in student loans in the 80s and it was a relief to pay that off, buying a house and having kids etc takes a chunk of money, especially things like down payments!</p>
<p>Many of us may not have experiences with $80k in debt, but we may have earned anywhere from $25k-$200k in income, had losses and downturns as well as windfalls and raises. In other words, we have experienced life in our 20s/30s/40s, the years when you would be paying back the money. And many of us think back to those days and are not thrilled with the idea of having had $500-$1000 in student loan repayments back then.</p>
<p>Also, many of us have put multiple kids through college and seen them emerge on the other side.</p>
<p>Yes, my Ds two friends who went IB got six figure bonuses, and probably would not have suffered too much last year paying their student loans, but I don't think either of them had many/any. I wonder if either of them have gotten laid off yet? I wonder if either of them saved any of that bonus or if it went for the Manhattan rent and the summer in the Hamptons? If they had gotten a 6 figure bonus and used it all to pay their student loans off they would be okay now, but if they assumed life would only get better, they might be hurting now.</p>
<p>Of course one of those guys took no loans and one had very small loans.</p>
<p>I'm freaking out about the cost of college, but since my parents don't have much money I will have to go with the best FA offer. It's OK. I don't want my choices in life to be limited by debt. I'd rather have a job I love, or even start my own business, than be tied to a big loan payment.</p>
<p>Adults with a mindset like AnotherAngryTeen are the reason for the mortgage crisis.</p>
<p>Amen, daggoth.</p>
<p>AnotherAngryTeen - just let us know who the sucker is that you are going to get to cosign for your loans..
you can only get $19,000 from Stafford and a few more thousand from Perkins if you are very needy.....</p>
<p>the other $60,000 or so will be "alternative" loans that require excellent credit that few 18 year olds have. Thus the co-signer.
This is the person who will be stuck when you default.</p>
<p>A more balanced perspective:
Well, despite the personal debt warnings. If personal loans are required to make college a reality, then it is worth it. Better than working in a low-paying, unrewarding fast food/mall job your whole life. Even if it means $500 - $1000/mo student debt. Loan company, you fund my life now so I can study full-time and make a future for myself, then later I'll cut you in on half-a-week - a week's worth of my salary for 20 years. Seems like a good deal to me.</p>
<p>Angry Teen
Well if you want an realistic assessment from within academia. Many who have terminal degrees lose much of their income trying to pay that debt off, to the extent that their standard of living is at times not much better than those who attended no college.
For those in other fields the amount of debt can still be crippling. As is indicated by the AMA's attempt to lobby the loan industry and their associates in the department of education for increased loan forgiveness and deferment programs. Now the AMA represents doctors a group which tends to be very well paid. But even that field cannot absorb much more debt loads for their education.
And in any field the debt to benefit ratio for education has become problematic. For example Between 1993 and 2004, the average debt for graduating college seniors with loans increased by 107 percent (Boulder Camera)
And to assume that a given loan amount will remain stable is unrealistic. Because of the way that SL loans are bought, sold, resold a borrower will have little say in how enhanced fees are applied. And that's even if they can keep all the payments on time. If there are late payments, or other troubles such as deferments its not uncommon for the initial amount to increase by a third or more. And its an open secret that these little tricks are where the profits for SL companies can be really found. For example as noted in Inside Higher Education just one major company had its fee income increased by 228% between 2000 to 2005, while its managed loan portfolio went up only 82% during the same period. Now 82 % is quite a nice margin, but 228% indicates that the big bucks are in enhancing the fees or driving loans into collections or default. When that kind of lucre is involved and its attained by shifty means its not very likely that certain in the SL industry or those elements of academia who are swimming in that poisoned well will be especially inclined to provide students or their families a heads up as to how the system actually does work.
Since normal consumer protections have been removed by very successful industry lobbying, in regards to student loans there is no safety (or any effective legal rights) for borrowers if events do not go as expected. And in a poor economy events will not go as expected.
Investment in education is appropriate but the rules have been so skewed that what used to be the normal and safe level of borrowing is now risky. And that is compounded due to our current economic troubles. To recklessly borrow, assuming that one would be exempt from circumstances is arrogant, stupid and ultimately economically suicidal.
And whether someone choses or elects to ignore these developments well that's their decision. But many in academia are becoming very concerned that the malevolent aspects of the situation could be a seminal influence in wrecking the economic future of students, the credibility of academia as institutions of service to the country, and ultimately the collegiate system in its totality. That concern is very evident from the initiatives that Stanford and other Ivy's have begun to try to remove their schools from the problems attendant to the edudebt phenomenon.
There have been profound and clear essays, news investigatory reports, political testimony done by influential, educated, and credible people ranging from Elizabeth Warren to 60 Minutes and On Point about this issue. So whether or not one choses to pillory those who express opinions on a board such as this one, there are people whose integrity or abilities which cannot so easily dismissed that have also expressed like concerns.
Since Mom of four and others have expressed almost the same concerns as someone like Dr. Warren (Harvard University Gottlieb Professor of Law) perhaps an apology or at least some courtesy is in order. Or would the assumption that someone as high caliber as Dr. Warren is also below courtesy be assumed?</p>
<p>Yes, it's a bad thing, because it takes away choices. </p>
<p>As I've written about before, the problem with debt is that when you take on substantial college debt, you are taking away from yourself options in the future. Until you pay off the debt, some of the choices you make in your life will be governed by the limitations of debt. For example, you're going to have to evaluate all the jobs you're offered in terms of how well they'll allow you to pay off your debt. Maybe you graduate and meet someone and want to get married -- the wedding you can afford, the home you can make, when you can have children, what you can provide to those children -- many big and little decisions will be affected by the simple fact of your debt. </p>
<p>To me, part of the point of going to college is to give yourself more opportunities and to enhance your ability to be successful and happy in life, through earning power and also through the fullness that education can give you. When you take on a lot of debt, you're undermining a substantial part of that benefit. </p>
<p>And finally, the debt isn't contigent on you completing your education. In the event of any number of life changes short of complete disability, the debt will still be there, even if you never gained the earning potential of the degree. Parents die in car accidents or need care, wars and natural disasters happen, schools and communities get blown away by hurricanes, girlfriends get pregnant and become wives, stupid college pranks and choices go badly end result in explulsion or loss of federal aid. Stuff happens. "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans", as John Lennon put it -- and suddenly, the plan you had for paying back the debt is no longer workable, but the debt is still there. Life goes astray, even when we think it never will.</p>
<p>By the way, I <em>do</em> have experience with debt. It's been 20 years since I left college, and I've just now gotten my student loans out of default. I had a modest amount of loans and didn't see what the big deal was, either. But as an adult with perspective, I understand a lot better that taking on student loans is a choice that affects you for the long term. One of the best gifts I've been able to give my son is that he's attending school without any loans, so that he'll be able to graduate debt-free.</p>
<p>Trin SF,
Beautifully written explanation of the what the undue costs of education can do to the personal lives of those affected. An equally disturbing aspect is what such conditions do the the general economy. Many of our educated and ambitious direct too much of their income, the same income often derived from their education, into the maw of the financiers. And as such, the consumer engine which truly drives our economy receives that much less. And we are seeing that effect in our current economy. Speculators whether they are in education or another arena are not the foundation upon which a stable economy can be sustained.
Socially these conditions are also disastrous, what good can come from having the educated and ambitious in thrall to financiers who never should have been allowed access to higher education. These entities do not teach, nor do they build, by what right have they been allowed to take effective control over higher education? In many terms all they have done is to redirect resources which were not theirs to claim, into their own pockets. Not of course before taking an undue percentage. And even after a working life is over they have schemed a manner to take such as social security if their rigged debts are not paid. Once again resources which should not be theirs to consume.
And as some have noted, literally the only way out from this new bondage is death. And some have taken that unfortunate route but for those left behind they have not been left in peace. So its not surprising that one of the subsidiaries of these corporations has proudly adopted a shark tank as its persona. The betokens a level of moral absence unheralded in recent history and is very demonstrative of the arrogance brought by undeserved wealth. A feudal lord would not have dared such hubris.<br>
What the current educational debt issue is at its core is a betrayal. A betrayal by those in government who allowed this to happen. And if they did so by heeding the slick whispers of lobbyists and taking the donations then that betrayal is compounded. And ultimately it is a betrayal to the common good of our nation. When the potential of many of an entire generation can be sold to ensure undeserved and massive profits for a morally bankrupt cabal, then this country has indeed been betrayed.
And dispassionately we may be able to speak of percentage rates, refinancing, access to loans or speculators bubbles. But when one looks at the morality of this issue, as eventually one must, in good conscience how could any claim that what has be done is right?</p>
<p>Atana, your passion on this issue is matched only by your eloquence. Issues like this often make me wonder if anyone in Washington is awake and paying attention, reading the same books or articles I am, wondering what is to be done. Do you know if Congress is in any way active on this?</p>
<p>Also remember, you are paying off that debt with after-tax dollars. Federal taxes, state taxes, social security, medicare....all eat away at that top line of your paycheck.</p>
<p>You might want to look at this
Inhospitable</a> Job Market to Greet College Graduates</p>
<p>While all of these arguments are well and good, the reality is that some students WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO TO COLLEGE unless they take on some debt. Their parents' income makes them ineligible for full aid, and their parents don't have the money to pay, and they don't have the stellar grades to get merit aid. Yes, they can go to CC for two years, but they will still have 2 more years to pay for and maybe even more than 2 years if not all of the CC credits transfer.</p>
<p>Taking on debt to go to college is far preferable, imo, to not getting a college degree. Even $80,000 is still only about 2-years' salary for a college grad. Someone without a degree will not likely ever have the options for home purchase, vacations, etc that a college grad has, so how could being a college grad with debt be a worse alternative? At least there is more opportunity for career advancement and higher pay. And after 10 years of payments, you will likely be able to purchase a home, etc. Age 31 is still young for a first time buyer.</p>
<p>OP: You're absolutely right. Why don't you go ahead and find out the truth? Come back and post it on here once you figured it out :).</p>
<p>Bay: I don't think the op was asking if the debt was worth it to get a degree. He was assuming that debt isn't a big deal at all if one graduated from a top university. Then the op basically said that all the responses were falsely made by housewives who had no experience.</p>
<p>Hey, Bay -- I'm not saying people should stay out of college rather than take on loans. But there's a difference between the loans needed to go to a good state university and the 60-80K the original poster was talking about. </p>
<p>80K may be "about two year's salary to a college grad" -- PRE TAX -- but that also assumes getting a very good job and having no other expenses. And as I said, that means giving up many choices. And if for some reason you don't graduate? Then you don't have that earning power, but you're still on the hook for the money. </p>
<p>Some debt may be necessary, but the OP asked if it was a big deal. It is. It's a serious thing, and should not be entered into lightly, because it will have a profound impact on so much of your life for so far into the future.</p>