The education "at all costs" myth

<p>Amen.</p>

<p>However, keep in mind that most of the posters on CC have the good fortune of being in a position to be considered for merit aid and scholarships. What about all the average students out there who don’t get offered any money other than need-based aid, if that?</p>

<p>Many of the students at my son’s school receive no merit aid and the amount of need based aid available does not cover the COA. These kids take any and all federal loans they can get and their parents take out loans. While some may do well, the sad fact is that many will either not complete the four year program or they will graduate with mediocre grades and major in fields where the employment opportunities are limited.</p>

<p>I honestly do not know how they will pay back the loans. It just doesn’t seem right to lend someone money without some assurance that they can pay it back. It would be more honest and fair to just tell some people that a degree in XXX may result in a job paying $$$ and therefore they cannot afford the loan.</p>

<p>Yes, it has long seemed horrendous to me that lenders can loan what seems like any amount to anyone for “education,” without regard to the borrowers/student’s ability to repay. Those parents who are co-signing may NEVER be able to retire either. Sometimes the kid just decides s/he doesn’t even want to complete the degree & still has the huge loans to repay or sometimes there is just no job anywhere that wants the skills s/he has to offer.</p>

<p>In this economy, even “marketable” degrees like engineering and the OP’s chemistry are having trouble finding & keeping jobs.</p>

<p>We count our blessings that S was able to find a job–many of his friends (who are also graduating this term) are still hunting futilely.</p>

<p>Thank you OP for this story
As a student putting herself through school, it is reassuring to hear that the less expensive option might be the one easiest to live with in the long run</p>

<p>I think even the brightest kids in HS can’t grasp the concept of a lot of debt because frankly, they haven’t had to run a household yet. I think they think ‘50k of debt to go to my favorite school is no big deal, I’ll probably be making 60-70k when I graduate.’ I think it would be helpful in cases where a significant amount of debt is being considered for a parent to sit down and go over the numbers. 50-70k in debt over 30 yrs can come out to minimum payments of $300-500/month depending on interest; then have them factor in the types of take-home salaries that entry level employees make in fields they are considering, rent in cities they’re considering, and then all those extras that kids don’t think about – car insurance, cell phones, health insurance, cable/internet etc. Also, have them consider that if don’t want to be making payments over 30 yrs of your life, you will often have to double or triple your monthly payments to service the debt faster. Running various scenarios like this in excel may make them really think about the commitment they’re making when they undertake debt for a favorite school.</p>

<p>Not intending to open up a controversial subject but I would really discourage taking on huge debt in liberal arts fields that don’t have a “defined/marketable” career path or where the student doesn’t want to pursue the defined career path. I know lots of liberal arts grads with really interesting, well paying jobs – ex. an english major who has broken into architecture and works for an arch. firm at a great salary writing project descriptions etc. But lots of these types of things are luck of the draw – making the right connection with the right prof or through the right internship. It would be great if everyone could find those jobs but when taking out 50k+ in debt, it’s a huge risk to take because for every one liberal arts grad who has an interesting professional job, there are many more who are working retail/customer service etc. at wages that make debt service difficult, until they find their break or their passion.</p>

<p>I know it has become very “uncool” to commute to college from home. The student will be missing out on a big part of the “college experience”. </p>

<p>If debt worry is a problem, and if you live within commuting distance of a prestigious college, either public or private, why not suck it up and commute from home. Saving room and board, at least for the first couple of years, would be a way to attend a dream school without becoming overburdened. </p>

<p>Being from Boston, this is an option. I realize it may not be in many places. </p>

<p>Any opinions?</p>

<p>However, keep in mind that most of the posters on CC have the good fortune of being in a position to be considered for merit aid and scholarships. What about all the average students out there who don’t get offered any money other than need-based aid, if that?</p>

<p>In such cases, there can still be some choices to minimize loans. Go to a CC for 2 years, and then go to a 4 year. At least then the bigger loans will only be for 2 years.</p>

<p>I know it has become very “uncool” to commute to college from home. The student will be missing out on a big part of the “college experience”.</p>

<p>Right…and it becomes worse if the student hears that his peers are going away or if he feels that commuting will feel like 4 more years of high school.</p>

<p>Even with a “defined career path,” such as engineering, there is no guarantee that the student (especially these days) will complete & get the degree and then land a job in his/her field. </p>

<p>We have spoken time & again about “crushing” debt, but sometimes/often it feels like shouting in the wind. The lenders are saying, “borrow, borrow, borrow.” The parents really don’t want their child to “give up their dreams,” and have no idea about the realities of their kiddo’s earning potential and whether it will materialize.</p>

<p>OP, thanks for starting this thread. It should be copied & stickied in both the Parents Forum & Financial Aid. Folks feel that if the school gives them loans, they they can “afford” the school. As OP shows, there is a tremendous burden that will follow these loans.</p>

<p>Yes, there are options for reducing debt–going to in-state U and/or living at home DO reduce costs. Some kids live in dorms for “the freshman experience” & then move home to conserve thereafter, once they’ve made a circle of friends. Families have to be more realistic in these days of skyrocketing costs (with salary cuts and job layoffs & cuts). Our D did attend CC for 3 semesters & in-state public summer school. It all helped. S was able to get significant merit scholarships, lived frugally & used a lot of on-line textbooks.</p>

<p>TomSrofBoston,</p>

<p>It’s not too cool to live with the parents after finishing college, either, so I agree with you that if it is necessary to live with the parents for a couple of years at the beginning of college in order to avoid crippling debt, then that is the way to go. Sometimes it is possible to buy a partial meal plan in order to eat dinner on campus even if you don’t live in a dorm; that would make it easier to stay on campus through the evening in order to participate in some of the campus activities.</p>

<p>Thank you for sharing your story, OP. I think a lot of high school seniors simply don’t have the experience to understand what a debt of $x0,000 really means–for their lifestyle, for their bank account, for what they can afford and what they can’t. I know I had no idea when I was that age. Sure, I saw the numbers, but I couldn’t conceptualize the true meaning of them in a real world situation. I feel so bad for students who learn what those numbers mean later . . . the hard way.</p>

<p>It can be uncool to commute but there’s always the option of living on campus for the first yr, making friends/get involved and then moving off campus and commuting; by moving off campus, I don’t necessarily mean the school neighborhood but maybe to a town 20 min away where rents won’t be marked up due to an abundant student population. Ideally if they can find a few like-minded students, they could get a shared apartment with other students in a different community and not feel like they are true commuters who are totally separated.</p>

<p>Also, commuting does not equate an extension of high school, even though it’s hard to convince high schoolers of that. Commuting to Harvard or Penn or URichmond or wherever is going to be nothing like that student’s high school because s/he will likely be one of a few people from their HS even going to that school. Sure it’s different if there’s a non-flagship/non-competitive U right in your town that every HS grad automatically signs up for.</p>

<p>I’ve always been of the view that a student should not get into debt to take education. As a responsible parent it is their duty to let the child know if the college education is not affordable to them.
The college is the best place to learn about life and responsibility and financial responsibility is very difficult to come by. By putting the children through loads of debts, parent are showing poor financial responsibility.
How is this any different from making the mistake of taking out more mortgage than one can afford?
One should not get carried away, not every debt is bad so taking some debt for a good education is actually good but it should be looked into as any other financial transaction.
Take the loan whose 10 years amortization should not be more than 10% of the take home pay once the applicant start working. It is not home mortgage that you look for 30 year amortization and 30% of the take home pay.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, not all parents appear to be financially responsible (lots of foreclosures and bankcrupcies due to too much debt vs. too little income/assets), all over our country. </p>

<p>In such settings, where is a HS student supposed to get sound financial guidance? From the lenders who are dying to loan $$$ to them? From their parents who are over-extended themselves? From people who have bought into the mantra that a “quality” education is worth all sacrifices and will pay $1 M more in income?</p>

<p>Our nation has no readily available impartial source that students and families can sit down with and impartially weigh objectives so that they can fully understand their choices and long term consequences.</p>

<p>That is why I’m a big supporter of teaching real life finance to high school students like ethics and sex education.</p>

<p>Financial irresponsibility is the biggest cause of bankruptcies or foreclosures.</p>

<p>Parent need to teach this if school is not.</p>

<p>Yes, real life finance would be a good thing for kids to learn. My kids did have to make a budget when they were in HS (I think it was for a mandatory health class in 9th grade). They had to find a job with a realistic income and then expenses including housing rental, food, transportation, etc. and figure out how much money they’d end up with. Some scout badges also include this–I know that one of the badges for Eagle required tracking of family finances and making a budget.</p>

<p>It’s tough for irresponsible parents to teach responsibility. Media, TV, etc. don’t help, as it only shows people living in gorgeous places who don’t appear to be working very hard and rarely have any money woes. Our economy is built on spending and borrowing and credit rather than saving and waiting until we can actually afford what we want. People claim they “need” things which are non-essential but they feel they can’t or more importantly won’t do without. When parents are maxed out on their credit cards and live paycheck to paycheck, how do they teach planning, budgetting, savings, and having an emergency fund? </p>

<p>Schools can and should try teaching fiscal responsibility in the abstract and concrete, but when the kids never see it in action (in their lives or TV or movies), it is not something they internalize. Where schools will be able to shoehorn personal finances into the already packed curriculum is another matter.</p>

<p>Two points:</p>

<p>First, the schools and the lenders bear some responsibility for these kids getting into extreme debt. How are they any different from the credit card companies that give credit cards to college students who don’t even have jobs? </p>

<p>The lenders get paid to make the loan and its guaranteed by the government. They really don’t care who they loan to or how much. Its to their benefit to have as many students as possible in debt. They lend without regard to normal lending guidelines such as income and credit-worthiness. And they get all the money back even if the student doesn’t pay, thanks to us taxpayers.</p>

<p>The schools want the money, too. If the students can get loan money to pay tuition, good for the school because more can attend. Same with tuition increases; just have the student add more loan debt. Makes those increases easier to defend.</p>

<p>Second, it’s the attitude that I see here all the time that if you get accepted to a prestigious school that you should do everything in your power to go there, even take on a debt load. If a student passes on a higher ranked school to attend a lower ranked institution that gives more aid, the student is made to feel like a failure.</p>

<p>Just read the thread about the Ivy caliber student wanting to go to a Tier 4 school. Parents can be obsessed with prestige and this rubs off on the student. I can hardly fault the student who feels he must attend a high ranked school even if he truly cannot afford it. My goodness, his life will be ruined if he doesn’t go to the best school. (sarcasm).</p>

<p>Personally, I’d like to see a complete overhaul of the college lending system and changes in aid for lower income and middle income families that relies less on loans. Since that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, it’s best to teach students to limit college debt.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree. This is one reason that I do not understand parents who refuse to contribute to their child’s college education “on principle” (not because of genuine need, such as retirement, medical, etc.!), if parents have the wherewithal to lessen the debt load by contributing to tuition. I say this as one who has a relative who allowed the son to graduate with debt that he just paid off at age 40, and who also may never be able to buy a house, etc. His situation is not as extreme as the OP’s, but i.m.o. it was quite unnecessary and not something I could ever do as a parent in their lavish circumstances.</p>

<p>I do agree with HIMom’s post 32. </p>

<p>This country emphasizes spending grossly disproportionate to the need for saving. The interesting thing is that spending so dominates our modern reality that it would appear that it has always been that way. Not so! Not at least when I was a child. Today, despite any specific practical education in and out of home, the modern young person is up against a very different set of lifestyle expectations, even if (often) lower middle-class. It permeates everything, it seems. That absence of moderation is something that some of raised with different expectations may need to be more conscious of when counseling our young & grown kids, and may account for some of the lack of direct education about finance. (For many of us, the idea of personal spending without limit has never been an assumption, since moderation is ‘in our blood.’)</p>

<p>I don’t know if I totally agree with the assessment that young people today are out of touch with what it means to be financially responsible. My Ss and many of their friends I speak with are remarkably frugal and focused on planning realistically for the future. S’s GF downsized her apartment to save more $$ even though she has a very good job and a very good salary. I asked her why and she said, “I realized I could live simpler and save more for a time I may need to have more options.” Sounds like pretty sound reasoning to me.</p>

<p>S2’s college story has yet to be written, but S1’s (private) education was worth every penny. It has been remarkable to see how he has grown intellectually and the remarkable depth and breadth of his education. It has exceeded my expectations and his.</p>

<p>As always, it’s much easier to live as life has been modeled. Our kids have always seen us weigh choices and try to stretch our dollars. It’s not surprising to us that they are doing the same. We have always lived well under our means so that when unexpected bills occur, we can handle them without major upheaval.</p>

<p>Our S has been much more frugal than D, but she’s also pretty good at saving rather than spending. He was VERY upset with her that she and her friends chose to live in the new apartment building next year instead of taking over the lease in his much less expensive older apartment (he sees that as extravagant–we weren’t thrilled but didn’t want D to have to adjust to brand new random room mates as a jr/sr next year & her friends were committed to new place).</p>

<p>We are pleased that both of our kids seem grounded in spending carefully and saving their money. Our kids so far have greatly valued their expensive private U, so we are pleased that it has been worth it (and no one has had crushing debt because we were able to save by living below our means for so long).</p>

<p>I’m not in as bad of shape as this girl but here is her story since blog links aren’t allowed:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know why we have let college “rankings” in places like US News World and Report brainwash us so much into pursuing educations at places that are out of reach cost wise for a lot of families. At the undergraduate level, university prestige is by in large part a myth that you should not buy into to convince yourself or your student to take out huge amounts of loans in order to go to such as school. Undergraduate educations are pretty much the same no matter where you go. The only time the name really matters on your diploma is if it is a graduate degree. But no one should EVER pay for a graduate degree, unless it is a professional degree.</p>