<p>Some kids are just naturally wired to be organized and thrifty, I think. I have one that way. Some just are not. I just hope that the wires are in place for those who just don’t want to think about finances so that when the experiences start rolling in, that they learn from them, and all that we have harped, preached and practiced as well as suffered, comes into play in those brains.</p>
<p>My son’s financial lifestyle is a choice.
He knows that I lost my job 2 weeks after he was born (I’ve been a single parent since the day I got pregnant, never got child support - never asked for it).
He knows it took me 8 years to get back to the same salary level I left behind. He has seen my paycheck, my salary history (that sheet the SSA sends every year), the household bills, the tax return, you name it, I’ve done it.</p>
<p>He sees how I shop, what I buy, what I don’t buy. Any choices he makes are not done out of ignorance of knowledge, but rather a disregard of a smart (imo) decision.</p>
<p>I am confident he will ‘get it’ eventually. When he wants to acknowledge that I’m right (and have been all along). </p>
<p>He has a stubbornality disorder. Since he was born he has been this way (not with money, but things in general, never took well to being ‘told’ what to do).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if they rot your mind.</p>
<p>Now, I don’t mind making “personal microeconomics” a required GE. Toss in lots of calculus, linear algebra, etc. At least the class will be a lot more stimulating.</p>
<p>Another element to the problematic situation may develop as a correlation to troubling aspects of the general economy. </p>
<p>Recently I have noted some substantial changes within the rites at the local consumer temple of WalMart. People are increasingly charging such delicacies as ramen noodles, sardines, potted meat and such. Which used to be bottom end stuff and certainly not paid for with credit. The people doing these things are not extravagant but seem to have no other resources left for essentials (like food) but credit. Here in Colorado an increasing number of people have been hit very hard by problems in fuel and mortgage costs-and as such have comparatively reduced incomes no matter how hard they may work or cut back. </p>
<p>Possibly given this situation (and appalling development) within the general economy its possible that those students who are already very economically constrained will be prone to apply monies from student loans in a like manner. Something which bodes poorly for their future and indicates a spreading economic problem. The end result will be the same, but in particulars be very different from the old paradigm of the idiot student who buys a big screen TV with the loan money. </p>
<p>The vexation is that certain populations in this country are often very good at being thrifty. They’ve had to be for generations. But between the costs of college and a general economic downturn, they’ve got little left to be thrifty with…and so either the students from that population will end up with their very souls hocked to the edudebt companies or we will see a massive reduction of that same population attending college. If that trend continues academia will have to give up any pretense of diversity or opportunity and independence from the corporate financiers.</p>
<p>I’m actually going to be charging every small item to my visa check card because of the cool fund-matching option. I’ll buy a small item just to make sure my purchase ends in a penny, so that way I’ll have 99 cents to be matched! The optimal MB/MC ratio for this is naturally with small purchases…</p>
<p>And as far as making personal finance classes a required part of the general education core…Good idea… but there are problems. If these are structured as formal classes, well the tuition costs just went up. And curriculum creep could arise as an issue, in some states there is some quite justifiable pressure to change curricula to ensure people can get done in a set number of years. </p>
<p>Plus if these are structured as a credible course addressing consumer debt finance issues, then good and bad aspects of the student loan situation would have to be studied as a integral component of that course. And that could be unlikely due to pressures by those corporate powers who do derive substantial profits from academia. Recently there was a move driven by the Spellings USDOE which was read by many as a back door attempt to control curriculum, with all the questions about motivations which that entails. </p>
<p>Speaking from some experience, there can be pressure on faculty to not comment about these matters. And any faculty teaching such a course would really be in the boiling pot. There is a form of censorship within academia, which is increasingly influenced by corporate pressures. Simply put, not all faculty would be free to comment even in an established course specifically addressing that subject,without possible retaliation. Luminaries such as Dr. Warren at Harvard have considerably more freedom in matters of this nature. </p>
<p>And if the proposed economic course was set up as a seminar, then it might be a case of birds fluttering past. It would happen but be so quick (or trivial) that it simply wouldn’t have its intended effect. For example I’ve sat in on financial aid advising seminars which were so soft as to be worthless. </p>
<p>Very good idea to require such a course, but establishing such courses could be a struggle.</p>
<p>cpt is right, to a degree, one of my Ds is miserly- charged interest on lunch money loans in elementary school, and collected that interest, too. She sees things in a very cut and dried way and is not at all shy to ask for what she feels in fair. In some ways I think it is a math thing, she seems the mental tally sheets and abides by them.</p>
<p>Another D is very spendy, but now that she is on her own she is being much more careful than when she was on the 'rent’s dime! I think she has picked up enough from our miserly ways that she knows what to do, she just cannot always manage to do it.</p>
<p>However, if we had not set an example of thriftiness, if we could have indulged in all sorts of goodies, I don’t know if they would have learned how to be more careful.</p>
<p>It is difficult for kids today when the realisation hits that they will not be living in the style to which they became accustomed, though I have seen plenty of kids at university with Daddy’s credit card living exactly as they always had!</p>
<p>“It is difficult for kids today when the realization hits that they will not be living in the style to which they became accustomed…” </p>
<p>Which in a more global sense statements of that nature could be betoken quite a disturbing social perception…even in the 1930’s people still held out some belief in rising standards. The problem is are the student’s delusional, spoiled, or simply retaining hope for better…</p>
<p>We’re in the Money," lyrics by Al Dubin, music by Harry Warren (from the film Gold Diggers of 1933, 1933)</p>
<pre><code>"We’re in the money, we’re in the money;
We’ve got a lot of what it takes to get along!
We’re in the money, that sky is sunny,
Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong.
We never see a headline about breadlines today.
And when we see the landlord we can look that guy right in the eye
We’re in the money, come on, my honey,
Let’s lend it, spend it, send it rolling along!
Oh, yes we’re in the money, you bet we’re in the money,
We’ve got a lot of what it takes to get along!
Let’s go we’re in the money, Look up the skies are sunny,
Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong.
We never see a headline about breadlines today.
And when we see the landlord we can look that guy right in the eye
We’re in the money, come on, my honey,
Let’s lend it, spend it, send it rolling along!"
</code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me it actually seems much more prosperous, and freer. At least there’s less worry about paying for rent and food, and I won’t be stuck in a small apartment with a mouldy bathroom anymore. 
</p>
<p>Now, if only my family is not ending up paying for 3 rents at once… (by the end of next year…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My girlfriend’s dad refused to fill out the FAFSA when she was applying for college, and we still have no idea why. We’re wondering if he smuggles drugs back or something when he flies back and forth from their home country every year. =</p>
<p>
Love that Sue - my daughter definitely has that disorder - has been beneficial in some areas of her life and detrimental in others.</p>
<p>It definitely is as much nature as nurture. My kids were raised the same - my daughter is very good with and very practical with her money. My son it burns a hole in his pocket. Fortunately they both seem to have absorbed our constant yammering about the importance of a good credit rating and seem to have that under control even though one manages to have quite a few dollars saved despite just being a rising sophomore so having only had part time jobs while the other has worked full time for 2 years and has no savings at all. They are just different i guess.</p>
<p>Somemom, my children are very different in their ‘thriftiness levels’ too. My middle child used to volunteer to do her siblings laundry, because then she’d keep whatever money she found in their pockets! She’d also ask for $2.00 in lunch money, when lunch only cost $1.25 and she’d pocket the difference. She buys nice things, but she thinks it through first and she works hard and saves a lot of what she makes.</p>
<p>My youngest likes to have the ‘latest’ stuff and has bought a lot of things that she really never used. Still, I would hope that she would NOT buy toys with her college loan money.</p>
<p>No more is want/need blurred than by universities themselves with all the recent construction, new technology and expanded administration that have been fueled by ever increasing tuition rates.</p>
<p>Well these trophy buildings are often put up because of the seemingly unlimited money coming in from the loan industry which links directly to the rising tuition phenomenon. </p>
<p>Because of the cuts in grants, and the incursions of the SL industry there’s little impetus for fiscal discipline at many colleges and universities at least insofar as the building excesses. Ironically much of this bingo money does not go to areas which directly benefit students. For example many schools are too reliant on adjuncts. Who can be good people, but its hard to get the best out of faculty when they make about the same as they would with a big newspaper route and never know semester to semester if they’ve got a job. And at some state schools they are now rationing paper, not for environmental reasons, but because of costs. </p>
<p>In the good (bad) old days of alumni donations for such building programs, often the alumni donors were very specific as to what was going to be built and who it would serve. Granted at times there was a tendency to sports temples, or bell towers, but at least it was controlled.</p>
<p>People making a decision between short-term pleasure and comfort and long-term financial security? Never has that happened before in the 5000 years of human civilization.</p>
<p>ferryboat, when we were doing college tours, every single tour guide said that kids didn’t need a car on campus, but all but one guide actually did have a car. So the students themselves (that are chosen by the college to represent them) are sending mixed messages about ‘wants’ vs ‘needs’. </p>
<p>You are so right about the colleges themselves blurring the lines.</p>
<p>“You are so right about the colleges themselves blurring the lines.” Jude_36</p>
<p>Quite true and a condition which has been long standing. But in the past such activities were less detrimental to students. Largely being the occasional useless bell tower, constant trips to conferences, faculty being unavailable for teaching because of sometimes useless research, and the extended sabbatical vacations. Camille Paglia wrote a quite sharply about such excesses back in the early 90’s. </p>
<p>But since then, less than admirable aspects of corporate America have essentially taken control of academia via debt financing, and as a result the resource money upon which the colleges have become reliant. And as a accessory result, academia has taken on the less ethical aspects of that same sector of the corporate culture. Concepts like students as customers and ‘lifelong learners’, and the expansion of trophy building programs. Which in actual function are not that dissimilar to Albert Lord’s golf course. Being an expression of ego and status, justified with the conceptual sham of serving higher education or students. </p>
<p>Interesting that back in the early 90’s one essayist postulated that American public systems were forming attitudes reminiscent of the aristocracy of 18th century France. Lots of posturing about serving the people, but long having forgotten any meaningful aspects of noblesse oblige.</p>
<p>Bartleby you are quite right about this phenomenon “People making a decision between short-term pleasure and comfort and long-term financial security? Never has that happened before in the 5000 years of human civilization.” </p>
<p>It could also be considered that people making short time and massive profits at the expense of long term systemic stability is also a related condition. And in this case, I think the predation on students is eventually going to undermine academia. It will be increasingly difficult for academia to maintain that it exists for ‘the life of the mind’ or to serve the next generation, even as a pretense. Simply because students will be hounded for most of their working life by a monthly reminder that it was not so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you know this, but it starts with the fact that <em>nothing</em> is free; someone, somewhere pays for it. Or more accurately, everyone pays for it. And those people have a say in how much tax they pay, and where it’s spent. Not as much say as they’d like, but that’s another story …</p>
<p>Each state is responsible for their own state public university system - and the difference in in-state vs. out of state tuition charged is, at least in theory, reflective of the amount of subsidy you, as an in-state student, are already receiving (not necessarily “you” – I don’t know if you’re in-state or not.) The out-of-state tuition rate is supposed to reflect what it <em>really</em> costs to attend. Now, what you’re asking is to increase that subsidy to the point where your tuition is zero, or near-zero. </p>
<p>But to put it in terms a very liberal former college president used, you’re asking taxpayers, millions of whom can’t afford to attend send their own children to college, and/or couldn’t afford it for themselves, to pay taxes to send you to school. How will you re-pay them? What did you do to deserve such generosity on their backs? </p>
<p>And that’s what it comes down to - the voters and tax-payers of your state could certainly all elect state senators who think college should be “free” - but they don’t. </p>
<p>If the voters think of it at all, they probably think “I went to school of the GI Bill; if it was good enough for me…” or “Hey, I had to work 7 jobs and walk 150 miles barefoot to school, in the snow, each way, uphill in both directions, to attend college, and you want me to pay more taxes so its ‘free’ for someone else”? or “I didn’t get <em>any</em> help sending my kids to college; now you want to raise my taxes to give people benefits I didn’t get?” </p>
<p>Personally, I support improving access to college, for everyone. And I’m particularly incensed when I see how much money is wasted by the government in ‘entitlement’ programs where probably half of the takers aren’t “entitled.” </p>
<p>But you can’t say “Hey, make college free 'cause I want it; I don’t want to reduce <em>my</em> standard of living by paying back loans; you should reduce <em>your</em> standard of living so I don’t have to.” - that sounds like a tough sell, to put it mildly. You have to be able to say “this is why society should increase its investment in public college subsidies, this are the costs, and this is the payback.” </p>
<p>And we’ll know that you’re on to something when you still want that program after you’ve left college … ;)</p>
<p>Alternatively, we could just steal Harvard’s, Duke’s, and Stanford’s endowments and redistribute them for tuition at state schools. But that would be wrong. Probably. :)</p>
<p>“But to put it in terms a very liberal former college president used, you’re asking taxpayers, millions of whom can’t afford to attend send their own children to college, and/or couldn’t afford it for themselves, to pay taxes to send you to school.”</p>
<p>But wouldn’t they be able to afford school for their children as well if everyone paid more taxes that went toward the general education? I think it’s ridiculous that someone who is childless and is already past his/her college years (whether that person actually has a degree or not) would refuse to pay a general education tax because “it doesn’t affect” him/her. We are a society for a reason - because we take care of each other and sympathize with others’ problems. While a particular issue might not affect you, another that is sponsored by taxpayers surely does. Why don’t people realize that they can’t expect anything from a society to which they don’t contribute?</p>
<p>“Hey, make college free 'cause I want it; I don’t want to reduce <em>my</em> standard of living by paying back loans; you should reduce <em>your</em> standard of living so I don’t have to”</p>
<p>It does sound selfish when you put it that way, but I don’t think this is just about me. I gave the example of my experience with UIUC because it was the first that came to mind. I have many friends who go to the same school and pay a ridiculous amount of money, imo. This doesn’t concern me anymore, since my school’s financial aid is sufficient enough to permit me to avoid loans, but I know plenty of brilliant kids who simply could not afford UIUC, and I don’t understand why this should even be happening at a public school.</p>