https://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data may be of interest. Click on a state to see debt levels at the public and private colleges in the state where data is available. Compare Utah versus Pennsylvania to get a contrast.
So, not only are Baby Boomers bankrupting Millennials with Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Debt, but Millennials are bankrupting Baby Boomers (and a few GenXers) with college debt! Thank you politicians who made it all possible.
Since the vast majority of college students in the US attend public colleges (~75%), obviously a high percentage of the total student debt is going to be from publics. But a higher percentage of those who attend private schools have debt, and their average debt is larger:
66% of graduates from public colleges have loans, the average debt is $25,550, and 12% default w/in 12 yrs
75% of graduates from private nonprofit schools have loans, the average is $32,300, and 14% default w/in 12 yrs
(And of course the stats for for-profit schools are horrific: 88% have debt, averaging $40K, and 48% default.)
Helpful @ucbalumnus, but it still doesn’t give me the overall. Looking at Pennsylvania, I think there’s an awful lot of people taking out $40K-ish loans to go to some pretty low-ranked privates. Average debt at UPenn is not that bad compared to some of the branch campuses of Penn State, for example.
I remain unconvinced that prestige-chasing is the most important root cause of the student loan crisis, or even one of the top three causes.
@ccprofandmomof2 Not sure if the average is “those with debt” or total debt divided by some number of student cohort.
Prestige chasing is relative. To you it may be Penn, but that’s a moving target.
Also. Like I referenced in a post or two ago, the public schools can also be a prestige chase. Rutgers is vs mich or cal oos.
It doesn’t have to be your normal hpysm fare either. It can be Syracuse or Union or Kenyon versus MSU IS, as an example too.
The Ivy League schools aren’t a large enough number to move the needle. It’s a case by case thing
@privatebanker In recent years, for-profit schools have definitely been at the forefront of student loan debt. The borrowers tend to be older and less likely to find jobs than those that attend state or non-profit colleges. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/02/25/student-loan-debt-statistics-2019/#3d8b4d33133f
from the article:
Borrowers who graduated from for-profit colleges represent 75% of all student loan borrowers and have, on average, $39,950 of student loan debt. Average student loan debt at for-profit colleges is 26% higher today than it was in 2008.
@privatebanker Right, but looking over this data just very quickly, I’m noticing that private schools that are generally well known nationally seems to have lower average student debt than those privates that are less well known and less highly ranked. Maybe CC’ers need to stop steering people to all those quaint little second and third tier LACs all over the northeast. Those seem to be some of the biggest culprits among the private schools.
The data for the prestige publics isn’t broken down by OOS vs instate, so we can’t know for sure. Still, the vast majority of college students go to in-state public institutions.
Probably not overall, as opposed to perhaps in the self-selected cohort of students and parents posting on these forums. Students who will commute to the local community college or moderately selective state university are common, but vastly underrepresented among posters here (although, in some states like Pennsylvania, even that can be difficult to afford by many).
That’s an interesting point. Those great smaller and a bit more obscure type school may be that student’s prestige option. So it’s a bit of sliding scale.
But I like your insight. Good observation.
You can’t solve a problem that is not accurately defined. I’m just suspicious of news media about student loan debt, as I don’t think it provides an accurate picture of reality, and I think it diverts attention away from what I think are probably more likely the real causes (the underfunding of public institutions and credential creep.)
It’s not about status seeking 18 year olds and their parents, though they contribute to it as well. It’s more often about a single parent in their 20s or 30s hoping that the ads blazoned on buses and billboards and television will be the ticket to a more secure life for their families, only to end up with a mountain of debt and job prospects that are not much better than before.
That statistic (that 75% of ALL student loans are for for-profit schools) is incorrect. The author of that article both misunderstood the numbers AND mistyped the percentage for for-profit schools. The linked article claims that 66% of all borrowers graduated from publics, 75% of all borrowers graduated from privates, and 75% of all borrowers graduated from for-profits — which adds up to 216%. What they really meant was that 66% of public college graduates have loan debt, 75% of private school graduates have loan debt, and it’s actually 88% of for-profit graduates who have loan debt.
For-profit colleges represent a very small percentage of total enrolled students: less than 1.5 million compared to ~5 million private college students and ~15 million public college students. And actually about 40% of college loan debt is for graduate or professional schools, not undergrad.
@MadcityParent They are definitely part of it, but not nearly anywhere near a majority. Much smaller percentage of the pie.
But I would agree a large percentage of those who do follow the path you describe end up being upside down.
Private, not for profit colleges and universities represent the best in us, not the worst. We pride ourselves in free enterprise, self-sufficiency and complain heavily about taxes as though all taxes are a personal mugging. You can’t "have your cake and it it too!’
Have you noticed that the distribution of financial resources has skewed toward the highest income levels as the computer and robotics productivity impacts on our international economy. We have created an even higher concentration of wealth at the very top of the US economy while simultaneously passing forward tax breaks to the same income group. Meanwhile a crisis has developed with changes to the Federal loan programs over the past two generations. The cost of education does not lend itself well to the economies of robots on a production line.
Do you really believe that private funding as just demonstrated at Morehouse is a bad idea? I would rather see it cheered and encouraged!
My private university has been promoting “pay forward” among alumni for years. It has not solved the problem, but it sure has helped! Should private institutions just close their doors and throw the entire educational burden on tax supported institutions? This is the largely European model.
Remember… we don’t like taxes!
Step back and look at the bigger picture. Be realistic and thorough regarding your own educational shopping. Some of the CC commentary regarding this issue tries to paint all private institutions with the same hucksters’ brush.
I see CC’s job as giving the most accurate information we can. Harvard, et al did not cause this problem, we did!
17 and 18 year old students are borrowing large sums of money, and they don’t always understand what they are getting into. Parents borrow PLUS loans & insist that their kid will repay that loan (not them). Families who can’t afford school without loans have few viable options for school without those loans (not everyone lives within driving distance of a college … or has a car to drive to a college). It’s all a mess, and sometimes I regret being a part of it. Yet I do feel some debt is okay, if it’s the only way to get a good job in a field that suits a particular person.
Re: attractive merit
There also needs to be thought given to how difficult it will be for a student to keep the scholarship. Some colleges set a very high bar to extend the scholarship to sophomore year. I’ve seen gpa requirements as high as 3.5, and I’ve frequently seen 3.2. That can be difficult to attain for many freshman at some schools and in some majors. Parents think their straight A high schooler will have no problem, but they are often wrong. If they are depending on the scholarship, it can lead to taking on additional debt or forcing their child to transfer after one year. It can also be extremely stressful on studentsowing they need a 3.2 when they are struggling to make a 2.8 can take a huge toll.
@Corraleno That what I get for trying to eat dinner and read at the same time.
Of course not, but that was not the point, which was many of the kids attending Morehouse are assuming a huge debt burden to do so and moreover, these kids are poor to begin with. IMO, most would be better off at their instate public if they could graduate with no more than the federal loan limit…
Sure, but few privates meet full financial need. Even with merit money, they can be more expensive for a low income student than attending the instate public.
Lol.
Maybe the Press is getting lightheaded with numbers, but it is reported that the Morehead students will have $40 million in student debt paid for by Robert Smith. There were 400 graduates. That is a lot of debt for 400 students.
I also read $4M in debt payments, which seems like not enough with 400 students.