Student Aid Requests Soar

Paying for College
41

<p>In terms of recent history, perhaps, even with Sallie Mae you are either confusing private loans with guaranteed loans, or perhaps refusing to acknowledge the difference in dynamics. Note:</p>

<p>[Suffering</a> the borrowing blues: proprietary schools likely to be most affected by lenders’ retreat from high-risk student loans, officials say | Diverse Issues in Higher Education | Find Articles at BNET](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WMX/is_1_25/ai_n24919559]Suffering”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WMX/is_1_25/ai_n24919559)</p>

<p>As for the proprietary career schools, that scandal peaked in 1990 and most of the offenders have been put out of business. The problem has been in decline ever since then. Here is a lengthy discussion of the facts in Texas, pointing out that the current loan volume due to career schools is down to 6%.</p>

<p>Finally, if by alleging that students don’t have adquate consumer protection you mean that student loans are no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It was for too many years an easy way for deadbeats to walk away from their student loans. I don’t condone that as a financial plan any more than I approve of the people who are currently walking away from their home mtges.</p>

<p>[TG:</a> Student Loan Defaults in Texas: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow](<a href=“http://www.tgslc.org/publications/reports/defaults_texas/ins_hist.cfm]TG:”>http://www.tgslc.org/publications/reports/defaults_texas/ins_hist.cfm)</p>

<p>You are beating a dead horse on the trade school issue. And if Texas loan volume of 6% is reflective of the national rate, then you are misleading everyone by quoting that 544 billion dollar loan figure as being indicative of a perceived problem that used to affect career colleges but doesn’t any more.</p>

42

<p>“Kennedy and Pelosi will break it by misapplied liberal reform, but such as Lord, Enzi, Boehmer and McKean have already sledge hammered it in the interest of corporate sweet heart agendas.”</p>

<p>Agreed. Especially the misapplied liberal reform part. (smiley face)</p>

43

<p>I’m quite aware of the distinction. </p>

<p>And no the scandals have not peaked. Have had former students contact me from out of state, they have been subjected to loan solicitations from schools which they have had no contact or interest in attending. And online schools seem to be the new players for these kinds of games. And they seem to be targeting minority students, recent immigrants and the less affluent areas. Former students who do not fit those category’s haven’t mentioned receiving these kinds of solicitations. </p>

<p>Just because its not in the press doesn’t mean its not happening. </p>

<p>“Finally, if by alleging that students don’t have adquate consumer protection you mean that student loans are no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It was for too many years an easy way for deadbeats to walk away from their student loans”</p>

<p>That actually was a propaganda tactic first used by the loan industry during their first attempts to remove consumer protections. At the time it had about as much veracity as its contemporary companion “the welfare mom driving the Cadillac”. As such it was a fine piece of disinformation and it worked. Because at the point it was used, defaults were actually at a lower rate than they are today.
And exactly why should student loans be exempt from standard consumer protections? And as far as alleging consumer protections on student loans are inadequate its not such bad company to be in…especially since such high level people as Dr. Warren of Harvard Law, have commented about the problem…</p>

<p>And its obvious consumer protections are being ignored…nothing much has changed since last year. The press gets bored, Congress gets distracted, and the common culture gets obsessed with Jolie’s baby or Britney’s underwear…</p>

<p>[Probe</a> Launched on Sallie Mae Collection Tactics - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602627.html]Probe”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602627.html)</p>

<p>By Amit R. Paley
Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student loan company, may have violated federal laws by repeatedly using aggressive tactics to collect loans from student borrowers, Senate investigators said yesterday.
Aides to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate education committee, said they believed the Reston lending giant tried to collect debts that were not owed, fired employees who attempted to help borrowers and intentionally sent payment notices to an incorrect address to force a borrower into default.
“I am concerned that several private lenders may be engaging in harsh and inappropriate tactics” that “are prohibited by federal law and regulations,” Kennedy wrote in letters sent yesterday to Sallie Mae and Nelnet, a Nebraska student lender, that requested documents about their collection practices.</p>

<p>The 544 billion is currently the overall student loan debt in the country, including all forms of academia. I include it to let people know exactly how much money is involved here…at no point was that number phrased to indicate it referred specifically to proprietary schools…</p>

44

<p>Indirectly you are implying that the 544 billion is in jeopardy as DOE records indicate areas with default rates as high as 20%. The panic button is hit. The reality is that you are concerned about perceived abuse in proprietary schools that are currently only around 6% of total loans, and 80% of them do not go into default. Your WashPo article is from April 2007. Lots of reforms on private lending disclosures went through Congress in summer 2007. Sallie Mae and NelNet are your prime offenders. I don’t dispute that; I know it to be true. But to eviscerate an entire industry for what these two did, most of which has been dealt with now, and out of concern for perhaps 20% of 6% of the total loans outstanding will cause untold damage to over 94% of the post secondary student population. It’s indefensible. Tell your students to do what I do with all the student loan junk mail I get…throw it away. If they get a phone call…hang up. End of problem.</p>

<p>Read that BNET article I cited in post 41. Even Sallie Mae won’t make these loans anymore. And they were private loans for proprietary schools, career schools. That article is February 2008. If these students are subprime bad credit risks, which the article says, then I don’t want my tax dollars going to grants to send them to cooking school. There is no justification for destroying everyone else’s ability to finance their education over this.</p>

<p>fwiw - I find it hard to believe the evil “they” are just targeting minorities. I have 3 college students now and I get this stuff in the mailbox every single day. It’s as bad as the constant bombardment of credit card and regular loan offers. Usually I wind up throwing away 1/2 my mail every day with all this junk. I suggest your students do the same thing.</p>

45

<p>Some reforms have gone through, but despite the agreements with the NYS AG to cease and desist several companies are still doing improper promotions on campuses. </p>

<h2>So there have been some reforms but scarcely lots…</h2>

<h2>And yes SMC and NNC are prime offenders, the reason they matter so much is because of their lobby influence. Until recently policies were being set as a direct result of their agendas and influence. As an example they’ve kept many smaller companies who might provide better service and rates to students out of the arena. </h2>

<h2>And that influence continues, in this weeks “Chronicle” Paul Baskin has noted that the non profit lenders were largely left out of the recent cash inflow/bailout intended to ‘save’ student loans. So its more a matter of the influence of such as SMC and NNC eviscerating any competition in ‘their industry’. Competition which includes the non profit student lenders. </h2>

<p>And the lobby party continues…And as Ben Miller notes in the June 11th 2008 higher education watch, and was noted thereafter in the June 28th National Student News Service-the controlling companies are quite busy strategically placing their people into the NASFAA (National Association of Financial Aid Administrators) state chapters. By that move they’ve essentially ensured their influence over supposedly independent decisions. By controlling this group they’ll have undue influence over institutional financial aid officers.
[Student</a> Lenders and Financial Aid Lobbyists ? Friends or Foes? - National Student News Service](<a href=“http://nsns.org/news/student-lenders-and-financial-aid-lobbyists--friends-or-foes]Student”>http://nsns.org/news/student-lenders-and-financial-aid-lobbyists--friends-or-foes)</p>

<p>Student Lenders and Financial Aid Lobbyists – Friends or Foes?
6/25/2008</p>

<p>Since 2003, concerns have circulated about the close ties between the student loan industry and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), an organization that lobbies on behalf of college aid officials. Suspicions rose as NASFAA’s policy positions often fell directly in line with big student lenders like Sallie Mae and intensified last summer in the wake of the student loan scandal that found some schools financial aid offices colluding with lenders to the detriment of students. NASFAA, while denying that lenders have sway over policy, recently agreed to take steps to sever ties with the student loan industry including ending lender sponsorships of social events and lender meetings at the association’s annual conference – moves that will cost them tens of thousands of dollars. A recent study conducted by the New America Foundation, however, found that while NASFAA has policy of prohibiting loan industry officials from serving on its national board, the rule that does not apply to the organization’s state affiliates and regional associations which depend heavily on student loan providers for both leadership and financing. The study found that 19% of the individuals serving leadership positions were members of the loan industry during the 2007-08 academic year.</p>

<h2>[Higher</a> Ed Watch Investigation: Student Loan Companies Infiltrate College Financial Aid Associations | New America Blogs](<a href=“http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/nasfaa-state-affiliates-4488]Higher”>http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/nasfaa-state-affiliates-4488)</h2>

<p>As far as certain online schools and private loan companies targeting minorities, yes they are. The students I referred to are Native Americans who have just relocated off the reservation. It’s very improbable that these offers were simply sent blind. </p>

<h2>So yes they can just toss them, but the mere fact that these schools and companies are preying on particular populations is disturbing. And since certain populations may assume that these are governmental programs it is a form of misleading advertising. And it is a common practices for these companies to imply they are indeed governmental. </h2>

<p>And no I was not indirectly implying that the 544 billion is all in jeopardy…the posting of that number is to show how much money and influence are at stake regarding student loan policy and agendas. </p>

<p>This type of money indicates how much potential control this industry has over the economic life of the US. And demonstrates how the US has potentially created an economic liability in its educational funding policies. </p>

<p>544 some billion put into the consumer economy or into personal investments would do much more for the country as a whole than 544 billion residing in loan company corporate coffers. That money has been and will largely be directed to speculation and over expansion of these same controlling interests. BC Eagle for example has posted some very useful information that these companies are massively over leveraged. </p>

<h2> This potential loss of general economic potential could be why Australia, Germany, Ireland etc do not model their higher education funding on the US model.</h2>

<p>However this thread is diverging from the original concerns about the increases in students seeking aid…so perhaps others will chime in an take this
in another direction…</p>

46

<p>Sorry, but I must correct you once more. It’s not Sallie Mae and NelNet who are trying to squeeze out the nonprofits, it’s Kennedy and Pelosi. The idea is to get rid of all the nonfederal lenders and go to 100% direct student loans where the only lender is the federal government. That’s why the bailout didn’t include the nonprofits. They don’t care if the nonprofits w/draw or go under. The bailout is a temporary measure for SM and NN due to their volume, much in the way the Bear Stearns bailout was cause they were too big to be allowed to fail. Ted and Nancy won’t hesitate to get rid of SM and NN once they have their federal infrastructure up to snuff.</p>

<p>And 544 billion of debt ourstanding is not “residing in the coffers” of anyone on the lending side. The lenders raise that money by selling bonds to institutional investors and then lend it out to students who pay their college expenses with it. When the students pay off the loan, the proceeds go to pay off the bonds so the “personal investments” recover on their (ahem) investment. The only money the lenders keep is their fee, which Ted and Nancy have reduced to below the cost of running the business, so the lenders are pulling out. Which is what Ted and Nancy want.</p>

47

<h2>The non profits are getting it from both sides. The neo-socialists such as Pelosi and Kennedy and the neo-con-corporatists such as the lobbyists for SMC and Nelnet. </h2>

<h2> About 15 years ago an essayist wrote that political distinctions between left and right would no longer matter in the US except for trivial symbolic categorization. The basic concept was that our elite bore striking resemblance to the French court after Louis 14th. Essentially like them, for our elites the court itself has become an end in itself not mattering if any of it serves a genuine function beyond enrichment of those at court. The reason is, he stated, was that our elite classes have lost any sense of obligation to society as a whole. In that type of a situation such as non profit student loan lenders don’t stand a chance…and the motivations of such as Kennedy, Pelosi or the Lobbyists for the controlling loan companies don’t even have the lingering credibility of noblesse oblige. And as such its not a matter of whether student’s are better served or the system actually works well (it doesn’t)…its simply a dispute over which entity controls this system-corporate agendas or governmental agendas. </h2>

<p>And even if the bond people and investors and loan companies do recoup their investments…it still does not negate the fact that 540 some billion whether it is residing in the bonds, guarantee or lenders aspects of the SL swamp… would have been better directed to the productive economy and especially to the consumer aspects of that economy. 540 billion would have produced and bought a lot of cars, computers, homes and etc. One of the aspects that Dr. Warren and others have routinely commented upon is how the transformation to a debt economy (of which all the players in the SL industry are a seminal part) has been instrumental in the decline of the middle classes. </p>

<h2>Its one of the reasons that other countries which do not use our system of educational funding generally have overall higher standards of living then we now do. They haven’t bound their middle classes (often the most inventive and ambitious of any society) to debt bondage for wishing to posses the education to be ambitious, inventive and intelligent. It could be argued that’s one of the reasons we drive German or Japanese cars, our homes are filled with Korean or Japanese electronics…is that too much of the energy and resources of our classes which invent and produce these things are compromised by debt…including educational loans. </h2>

<p>And yes Ted and Nancy do intend to drive these companies under, but we have to remember that in large part the entire industry only exists because of governmental fiat and support. </p>

<h2>So its not like any of the current educational funding system is something which could be justified as private enterprise. It largely exists because of government fiat and support and as such can be sent out of existence when that same government decides on another agenda.</h2>

48

<p>540 billion dollars is not residing in bonds, in guarantees or in lenders pockets. It went to pay college tuition. It was invested in the post secondary education of millions of students. Investment in education is a good thing. An educated work force produces the middle class and it’s how all those cars, computers, and homes get produced and purchased. And if you think other countries have a higher standard of living than we do, then you haven’t travelled very much. They do have a larger social safety net and a lot more free stuff, but at the expense of an enormous level of taxation and a huge government bureaucracy.</p>

<p>The bonds are sold to investors. The money they pay for the bonds goes to the students and the colleges. The lenders are paid a fee for processing the loan. They don’t keep the loan proceeds any more than the bond holders do. It goes to the students and the colleges. When the student pays off the loan, that money goes back to the bond holder with interest. I think investing in education is a good thing. The guarantee only come into play if the student defaults. Dr. Warren isn’t proposing to eliminate student loans, she just wants students to pay them off with government service. I seriously doubt there are enough government service jobs to absorb 540 billion dollars of loans outstanding, and if there were that would add 540 billion dollars to the federal deficit that is now being financed by the private sector. Dr. Warren’s most recent figures quoted in a Boston Globe article state that the average ug loan debt is $20k, and the average grad school debt is something like $45k. That is not unreasonable at all. There is absolutely no reason to add 540 billion dollars of debt to the federal taxpayer and increase a bloated bureaucracy along with it. </p>

<p>As for the idea of pulling all this back in to the feds and eliminating the outside lenders, yes, I know that basically Congress can do whatever it wants, but even Yale thinks it’s a bad idea:</p>

<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Obama outlines student loan overhaul](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21070]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21070)</p>

<p>From the cited article:</p>

<p>"But Yale Financial Aid Director Caesar Storlazzi said the University has already scrutinized direct loan programs — the approach Obama supports — and determined that mandating them would create more problems than would continuing the system currently in place. He said the “most important thing is having a choice.” </p>

<p>“Students can get better deals on their student loans … through private lenders than they can get through direct loans,” Storlazzi said. “There would be groundswell of opposition if we moved to direct loans. It would be more expensive for students.”</p>

<p>Direct loans have been an option for some time now. For the most part, students have not chosen them. Like I said earlier, and the Yale guy agrees, even the colleges and universities don’t like them. But if that’s what Congress wants then I guess that’s what we’ll get. It is as you say about power and control. But even with Service Pays, all that will happen is that the loans will be paid off by the fed govt, not the student, and the colleges will still get paid with loan funds and if, as you think, that is contributing to the high cost of college, then it will continue to fuel rising college tuition costs, only it will also add to the national debt and federal tax burden as well. Private sector relief and personal choice will have been eliminated.</p>

49

<p>How do other countries fund their education? Do they use student loans? Yes, they do. Here’s how it’s done in the UK:</p>

<p>[Student</a> loans - Student loans for fees & maintenance : HERO](<a href=“http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/studying/funding_your_study/sources_of_help/loans.cfm]Student”>http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/studying/funding_your_study/sources_of_help/loans.cfm)</p>

<p>Note that while theirs is a government run loan agency, the proprietary/career schools are not part of that system. If you need to borrow for a career school you go to a private bank like Barclays and get what’s called a Career Development Loan. I would be all for eliminating trade schools from the US federal student loan program and going to the UK system and making these loans the province of the private banks.</p>

<p>If you don’t get enough money from your govt loan to meet your needs, then you can go to a private bank and get what’s called a Student Overdraft Loan. The website cautions against doing this as it says many students get themselves into unmanageable debt with these loans and have to drop out of school. Hmm, sounds like the US.</p>

<p>In the UK interest starts accruing on the govt loan the minute the loan proceeds are paid although you don’t start paying off the loan til after you graduate and are earning more than 15k pounds, roughly $30,000. They put you on a repayment schedule tied to your income to keep the payments manageable, but you keep paying til the loan is paid off. Outstanding loan balances are written off by the govt when you turn 65 years of age. For loans written after 2006, you keep paying for 25 years before the loan is written off. Either way you are in debt for the rest of your life, more or less. What an improvement over the US system.</p>

50

<p>Students do not get to choose between lender funded loans and direct loans. That decision is made by the institution and students have to accept it or do without the loans. Also, the Direct market only has about 20% of the Stafford Loans…and truly can only handle another 20% of the loan necessities. What is going ot happen when Congress has pushed out all the legitimate lenders who ARE keeping the students best interests at the hearts of their businesses? Where are students going to find the money to get their college education? Schools cannot reduce their tuition…then enrollment would plummet. We polled our students two years ago: Lock in tuition rates or build a new and improved student center with all the luxuries other private LAC’s offered. The student were overwhelming in support of the new student center. They want the best technology, the best living conditions, the best campus…no matter how much debt they have to take out. Is the loan industry perfect? Absolutely not, but neither is any other industry in the world. For each negative found for lenders, I can find one for Academia and Professors. Maybe we could reduce tuition costs by reducing Professor salaries??</p>

51

<p>According to the govt website, the student can choose any lender they want. The college can recommend lender(s), but the student can choose:</p>

<p><a href=“https://studentaid2.ed.gov/getmoney/pay_for_college/loans_evaluate.html[/url]”>https://studentaid2.ed.gov/getmoney/pay_for_college/loans_evaluate.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>According to Pitt’s financial aid site, you can choose any lender you want. They recommend PHEAA, but you can choose anyone, and they give you links to find alternatives:</p>

<p>[University</a> of Pittsburgh: Undergraduate Admissions & Financial Aid](<a href=“http://www.oafa.pitt.edu/stafford.aspx]University”>Office of Admissions and Financial Aid | University of Pittsburgh)</p>

<p>We do not live in Pennsylvania, and our state has a local FFELP lender that can be used not just for our state colleges and universities, but for out of state also. The college you attend determines your aid eligibility, but you can choose your lender. You are not locked in to the preferred lender list. Some students don’t look past the list and assume they are locked in. Pitt does a good job of making sure you know you have a choice.</p>

52

<p>Is there a student loan crisis, ie, are student loans now hard to get? Here is a list I got by researching the Texas student loan pages of lenders who are either temporarily or permanently suspending their FFELP loans:</p>

<p>[Updated</a> List Of Lenders Changing Loan Practices](<a href=“http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2008/rsuspensions030408.html]Updated”>http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2008/rsuspensions030408.html)</p>

<p>PHEAA is on the list. On their site they say they are partnering with a bunch of (gasp) banks (!) to help ease the crunch on students. If Nikki’s right and the feds can at most absorb an additional 20% of capacity then perhaps it was a serious mistake to put the squeeze on the nonprofits. Oops.</p>

53

<p>Mercymom, Students can choose their lender, but they cannot choose between FFELP and Direct. Schools have to have special applications in place to participate with Direct loans and many schools do not have those applications in place. The information you posted refers to FFELP loans only. </p>

<p>My institution has only three recommended lenders on our list…due to several others removing themselves from the industry. We do advise our students that they are ableto borrow from any of the 3000+ Title IV approved FFELP lenders available but that their choice could delay the receipt of their funding.</p>

<p>It was a serious mistake to put the squeeze on the non-profits…because most of those were consistently placing the students interests at the top of all decisions made. They typically offer the best repayment incentives and work more diligently to prevent students from entering default. This squeeze is having a tremendous affect on many large non-profits, such as EdAmerica, who had to temporarily halt disbursements for 3 weeks. While this doesn’t affect most traditional (semester-based) students, it has had a HUGE impact on non-term programs which start new students every week. I’ve got over $250,000 waiting to be disbursed by EdAmerica right now…almost 80 students who desperately need their funding to help purchase books.</p>

54

<p>Thank you NikkiiL for reminding me of the distinction. I had seen a reference to some schools using both programs here:</p>

<p>[Stafford</a> Loan Overview (Student Loan Guide) - Federal Loan Programs - Student Loan Toolkit](<a href=“http://www.studentloantoolkit.com/SLT/Articles/Loan_Types/Stafford_Loans.aspx]Stafford”>http://www.studentloantoolkit.com/SLT/Articles/Loan_Types/Stafford_Loans.aspx)</p>

<p>but you are of course correct that most schools choose one or the other program, and what the student chooses is the lender. It has always been my impression that the nonprofits provide the best service to the students. I hope your students get their book money soon.</p>

<p>On the PHEAA website they say their current troubles are due in part to liquidity problems resulting from the “subprime mtge mess”. They actually used those words! On top of the misplaced notion that it would be good to squeeze out the nonprofits, I’m sure no one anticipated that action would collide with the subprime fallout. It is creating a perfect storm as right when loan demand is going up due to the economy, in part due to the mtges, the ability to get a loan is drying up. Good luck to you, and to your students!</p>

55

<p>Quick responses as this is now the busy time of year…</p>

<hr>

<p>The 540+ billion is an investment, however it may have been better to have provided that via grants or reducing tuitions and costs in academia. Rather than having students and families have that burden transferred down upon them-really the main beneficiaries of the current system is the large investor class. As already noted the non-profits are on their way out, if they aren’t run under by looming governmental pressures they will be run down by the lobby pressures of the larger controlling companies. And incidentally what these companies are doing is not that much different from what the Rockefeller’s, Gould’s and Fisk contingent did in the 19th. By controlling industry choke points they control the industry. There is a reason for the massive donations to select committees, such as SMC’s control of USA funds, and the recent attempts to control the NASFAA. </p>

<pre><code>That’s one of the reasons the elites are beginning to work with tuition reduction programs, the burden on families regarding loans and educational costs is at a breaking point. Now if the Ivy family’s can’t do it anymore, gods help the lower middle and working class families.
</code></pre>

<p>If the states and feds did some serious work with constraining unneeded collegiate expenditures such a method could at least begin at the state schools. </p>

<hr>

<p>Inside academia I see nothing which could justify the 6% yearly increases in tuition which have been afflicting students and families since the end of the last decade. And despite the appalling amount of money students are borrowing, which supposedly supports education…in most schools we do not see it applied to the classroom. Some facilities are as bad as anything I was working with out in the 4th world. </p>

<hr>

<p>Cutting profs pay, at the state schools it already has begun on a large scale although some do not see it outside of academia. How its being done is by the growing use of adjuncts. The adjuncts (All the various deities bless them because their employers won’t) are a preeminent example. The problem is such tactics will eventually drive capable people away from collegiate teaching. </p>

<p>And excepting the star profs, at most schools profs are not really paid all that well especially considering the costs of their education. In Colorado that’s enough of a concern that many of the professorial class are wondering if it is possible to continue in their trade, or to enter it. </p>

<p>Adjuncts, are much more desperate so they will take even 1 class wonders, which in some cases pay little more than a newspaper route. And increasingly we’re seeing a less qualified pool of adjuncts because the credible people simply cannot afford to play this game. </p>

<p>The professorial contingent doesn’t have an equivalent to the NEA, or AMA but if they had…they too would be asking for loan relief, or at least more reasonable ways of dealing with some of these companies. (And incidentally there is a rising level of censorship in state schools to preclude profs from warning students about the pitfalls of some aspects of the SL industry. Too much money’s involved and some schools do play in too many poisoned waters) </p>

<hr>

<p>US standards of living, not as good as we’d like to believe. And having worked outside the US, yes there are places better off then we are here in the US and some much, much worse. But this is supposed to be "America’ so a decline in living standards does tend to bear a much heavier loss insofar as national persona.
In regards to education costs. The Brits are not the best example to use, insofar as their educational funding system is also in trouble.</p>

56

<p>"US standards of living, not as good as we’d like to believe. And having worked outside the US, yes there are places better off then we are here in the US " - can you give some examples?</p>

57

<p>Canada, their dollar is now roughly equivalent to ours. The social system tends to work better in Canada, to the extent that until recently US citizens from the NW tier were routinely going there for meds and other services.
Which they couldn’t afford here in the US. </p>

<hr>

<p>Canada, in general is socially more stable. And compared to the US (with homeland security, TSA and local minions running all over even in pudunk towns in North Dakota, and Montana) the government is less obtrusive in day to day life. You can drive the highways without being constantly followed.
And in general Canadian border officials are better behaved than some of the idiot’s we’ve hired to man checkpoints (it seems the mall ninjas were really, really recruited for US duty). </p>

<hr>

<p>Tax burdens may be higher, but the Canadians aren’t spending 5,000 a minute on various wars. Much of their tax money remains to make things work in Canada. </p>

<hr>

<p>Canada has substantial oil reserves, so when they stop selling it in the US we’ll see fuel prices climb. </p>

<hr>

<p>And the Canadians have been intelligent enough to reform their laws regarding student loans, including making reasonable accommodation to the seemingly endless terms of these loans. Something which may never happen in the US because of the number of congressmen bought and sold by the edudebt lobby.
As such very soon its probable the Canadians will see another attempted influx of Americans hoping to take advantage of less draconian laws about student loan debt. Already due to economic difficulties here in the US, many teaching jobs in the provinces had been seeing lots of US applicants. To the extent some specified that Canadian nationals were preferred. </p>

<hr>

<p>There are problems on the reserves, but not to the extent of some of the troubles on US reservations. They have had some difficulties with the Canadian government but both sides generally manage to hold to agreements better. </p>

<hr>

<p>And the education system in Canada is equivalent or better than that of the US.</p>

<hr>

<p>About the only detriment is that one cannot generally possess a pistol in Canada…but that’s not something that’s really that big of an issue. Or it would seem not to be…Although many here in the US seem to think so…</p>

58

<p>The virtual shutdown of HELOC and supplemental nonguaranteed student loans will soon be noticeable. </p>

<p>Would you let your Bank or Government lend to a freshman an extra $10,000, and for next 3 years after that, at whatever interest rate you deem appropriate?</p>

59

<p>The problem is we’ve been so conditioned to loans as to think that system will last forever. Obviously it won’t, and is in deep trouble right now. And we have been conditioned to think that it is the only way to solve the student funding issue. </p>

<p>Rather than lending some frosh 10,000, be that from government or bank, perhaps supporting students directly would be the solution. Pay the tuition via grants, and hold academia accountable for keeping the costs reasonable. If there has to be some recompense, have it done via service whilst in school. Even such as tutoring school kids would be well worth the investment. </p>

<p>And it could be done, if the system was gradually reformed. Or quickly since it seems to be close to collapsing anyway. As noted before just the NNC over billing would have paid the tuition of every two year student in the state of Colorado. </p>

<p>In many terms SL’s could be considered a failed system. Students do not know what they are getting into, and there is a great deal of misinformation spread by the loan companies. The big players have defrauded the government, students, and families for millions with no meaningful penalties applied. The CEO’s of the major players involve themselves in activities which if done elsewhere would result in regulatory censure or prosecution. So its not like we can claim our semi-privatized system has been all that efficient or effective. So it’s a matter of how we have chosen to waste our tax money.</p>