Ripping Off Young America: The College-Loan Scandal

[dafoomie]

The federal government has made it easier than ever to borrow money for higher education - saddling a generation with crushing debts and inflating a bubble that could bring down the economy.

by Matt Taibbi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-america-the-college-loan-scandal-20130815?print=true

There are powerful reasons for both the left and the right to be willfully blind to the root problem. Democrats – who, incidentally, receive at least twice as much money from the education lobby as Republicans – like to see the raging river of free-flowing student loans as a triumph of educational access. Any suggestion that saddling befuddled youngsters with tens of thousands of dollars in school debts is somehow harmful or counterproductive to society is often swiftly shot down by politicians or industry insiders as an anti-student position. The idea that limitless government credit might be at least enabling high education costs tends to be derisively described as the "Bennett hypothesis," since right-wing moralist and notorious gambler/dick/hypocrite Bill Bennett once touted the same idea. "It is wrong to suggest that student aid is a cause for growing college costs, in any sector," David Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, wrote in The Washington Post last year, bemoaning the "re-emergence" of the Bennett theory. "To argue so is counterproductive to the goal of making higher education accessible and affordable."

Conservatives, meanwhile, with their usual " everybody who complains about anything unless it's us" mentality, tend to portray the student-loan "problem" as a bunch of spoiled, irresponsible losers who are simply whining about having to pay back money they borrowed with their eyes wide open. When Yale and Penn recently began suing students who were defaulting on their federal Perkins loans, a Cato Institute analyst named Neal McCluskey pretty much summed up the conservative take. "You could take a job at Subway or wherever to pay the bills," he said. "It seems like basic responsibility to me."

But conservatives most of all should hate the current system for any number of reasons – for being a massive hidden tax, for being a market-defying subsidy artificially keeping ineffective and poor-performing institutions in business, and for being an example of arbitrary government power seizing not just money borrowed plus interest, but billions in additional fees and penalties from ordinary people.

Progressives should hate the predatory tactics of lenders and the sleazy way universities rely upon loan-shark collection methods to keep themselves in fancy new waterfalls, swimming pools and tenure-track jobs.

 

[HornyPony]

Yeah, well nobody is making students choose private schools. City and state schools are affordable to the point where FAFSA can fully cover education. There are countless individuals who attend art schools that cost 30 grand a year, while the medium income in that field is exactly 30 grand a year...if you can actually find a job in that field that is. If you were stupid enough to take a huge loan for a profession that has a terrible job market, the fault is only on you. 

 

[dafoomie]

Did you RTFA because it kind of addresses your point...

A pell grant doesn't even pay for 100% of a community college anymore, and we're not even getting into room and board, books, living expenses...  It's the state schools that have increased the most in recent years due to budget cuts, and because private schools were already sky high.  Here is what every state subsidized school in my state costs as of last year (and there was another increase this year):

http://www.mass.edu/campuses/res_total.asp

Most community colleges here are in the 5-6k range.  Most state schools are in the 8's and Umass is around 13.  Without room and board ($10-11k at UMass, 6-7k elsewhere), without books ($1200 on average), without the mandatory health insurance ($1500-$2000).

These aren't adults making informed decisions when choosing schools and getting into loans that might cripple them financially, many are minors when they have to make these commitments and the basic disclosures required by the lender of any other private loan are not made.  They're told that grades and SAT's are important so they can get into a "good" school and getting into a "good" school is criticial to their future.

Underemployment is a fact of life even on the money degrees in this job market.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

I wounder what would happen if the government got out of the education completely. Shut down Department of Education and let students pay for their own schooling. Do you think the prices would go down, stay the same or go up?

 

[detectiveconan16]

If the government got out of education completely, why shouldn't it get out of other functions? Let private companies handle law enforcement, and defense, and sanitation, and all those functions of daily life you take for granted

That's like saying, these students CHOSE to go to school rather than finding a job out there. What prospects would you recommend? Flipping burgers at a fast food joint at a wage way below the poverty line? Fixing our decaying roads and bridges? Cleaning toilets? Picking  crops? Working in a factory?

No one's saying the government should pay schooling for college students 100%, but when costs are rising, and our young people are forced to take out crippling loans, there is a much bigger problem at hand.

 

[kklems]

[quote name="detectiveconan16" post="10991399" timestamp="1376740162"
That's like saying, these students CHOSE to go to school rather than finding a job out there. What prospects would you recommend? Flipping burgers at a fast food joint at a wage way below the poverty line? Fixing our decaying roads and bridges? Cleaning toilets? Picking  crops? Working in a factory?
 
No one's saying the government should pay schooling for college students 100%, but when costs are rising, and our young people are forced to take out crippling loans,.[/quote]

Yes they choose to go to school. They also choose to take out loans. There are many options available to them. Why do they have to start college right out of high school? Why not work a year or to and save some money before starting school. How about working through college? This drivel about not being able to work and carry a full caseload is just wrong. A full caseload is 18 credit hours meaning approx 18 hours of classroom time ( plus any labs) leaving you 150 hours to sleep, study, work etc in a week. What about going to school part time and working in some fields, other fields allow you to have your education paid for in exchange for committing to year of work post graduation. Public sector jobs have loan forgiveness programs (although they are slow to pay). Get a job at the school for free or reduced tuition. Don't pick a major that does not have job prospects or won't produce a return in the form of a good paying job. Go to trade school. There is a demand for electricians, plumbers etc.

Take responsibility for your actions.

 

[Access_Denied]

Yeah, well nobody is making students choose private schools. City and state schools are affordable to the point where FAFSA can fully cover education. There are countless individuals who attend art schools that cost 30 grand a year, while the medium income in that field is exactly 30 grand a year...if you can actually find a job in that field that is. If you were stupid enough to take a huge loan for a profession that has a terrible job market, the fault is only on you.

Ha! FAFSA. You mean the worthless program that only offers you loans?

I just graduated, and for the last two years, I received NO financial aid. The first two years, I got money from Illinois (about $2,500 a year). Then they figured out they were broke and ditched that. I also received university scholarships in the hefty sum of $30 a semester. Finally, FAFSA just offered me loans. That's it. My parents are divorced, so my dad is a single father with 3 kids. My mom had no job and my dad hardly makes anything. Yet they still offered me shit.

And as for that whole tuition thing, you must have went to college long ago. My tuition at a state school was $16,000. Not including housing, food and supplies, which landed me at about $25,000 a year. A state school. Private schools that my friends went to charged upwards of $45,000 with everything included.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that college is a very different landscape today. It's no longer for anybody and is starting to become more and more for the rich again. (Which is why so many schools are offering free online classes with no degree. People are seeking alternative education methods.) The only reason I could afford it is because I happen to have a very generous aunt who helped me out with tuition (although I still worked full-time). Without her, if it was just my dad, I'd have upwards of $60,000 in loans right now (instead I'm at about $10k).

I don't care what school you go to, if you're looking to go to a 4 year university, you will not be able to pay for it unless your family is fairly wealthy or you have a college fund that's been accumulating for 20 years (which still might not be enough). These kids are forced into loans because they're forced into college. (Now the kids that take out ridiculous loans and get shitty degrees? That's another conversation. :lol

 

[highoffcoffee496]

Yes they choose to go to school. They also choose to take out loans. There are many options available to them. Why do they have to start college right out of high school? Why not work a year or to and save some money before starting school. How about working through college? This drivel about not being able to work and carry a full caseload is just wrong. A full caseload is 18 credit hours meaning approx 18 hours of classroom time ( plus any labs) leaving you 150 hours to sleep, study, work etc in a week. What about going to school part time and working in some fields, other fields allow you to have your education paid for in exchange for committing to year of work post graduation. Public sector jobs have loan forgiveness programs (although they are slow to pay). Get a job at the school for free or reduced tuition. Don't pick a major that does not have job prospects or won't produce a return in the form of a good paying job. Go to trade school. There is a demand for electricians, plumbers etc.

Take responsibility for your actions.

I've worked since I was 16 and for my junior year at college I worked two part time jobs all while striving towards obtaining a double major. Even with this and financial help from my parents, I'll be graduating with well over $20,000 in debt in 2014......yay. I also love how my tuition has been raised every year while attending college

 

[perdition(troy]

I WAS FORCED AT GUNPOINT TO TAKE MY STUDENT LOANS, WOE IS ME

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

If the government got out of education completely, why shouldn't it get out of other functions? Let private companies handle law enforcement, and defense, and sanitation, and all those functions of daily life you take for granted

That's like saying, these students CHOSE to go to school rather than finding a job out there. What prospects would you recommend? Flipping burgers at a fast food joint at a wage way below the poverty line? Fixing our decaying roads and bridges? Cleaning toilets? Picking crops? Working in a factory?

No one's saying the government should pay schooling for college students 100%, but when costs are rising, and our young people are forced to take out crippling loans, there is a much bigger problem at hand.

I agree why not? Federal government has no authority in the field of education. There is a good reason for that as founders wanted this to be taken care of by families, friends and local government of the student. Law enforcement can be done on a local level as it is now. Defense could be as well as each state would want a different budget, for example California would spend much more than Montana. Sanitation, well we could just get rid of that as federal government has no constitutional authority of keeping us clean and safe from germs.

You seem to think if that people do not go schools than their only option is flipping burgers or fixing roads. I actually recommend learning computer languages and mobile hardware. Something that should be introduced in high schools instead of arts101 and aerobics. Foreign languages such as Chinese or German instead of French and Italian. How about technical and vocational schools? There are plenty of documentaries and news articles talking about how we need people in manufacturing industries.

Actually quite of few people on the left and the right believe in free education. They think it is a right of every citizen when it is not. Costs are rising but it does not mean the government has to cover the expenses as the reason for the rise is because of them. Look at the data and you will see rise in costs after creation of Department of Education. You will see that there are more students that go to school and yet quality of education is decreasing and literacy levels have barely moved up. I am all for people having a choice of schooling as educated students will only lead to a better future and this is precisely why I argue with people on this matter. I believe we need a different approach as the current one has failed us. A free market approach where there is more competition, price naturally goes down and quality up. But in order for that to happen the federal government would need to stop trying to take care of our education.

 

[confoosious]

It's very simple: if you can't afford college, don't go to college.  Hell, it'd be better for everyone if less people went to college.  

I'm no conservative (pretty liberal I think) but seriously, you take out a loan and it's not your fault?  WTF thinking is that?  

If you consider yourself smart enough to go to college, then you better be smart enough to understand what taking out a huge loan to go to college means.

Why should hard working students who can't otherwise afford college (and who will pay back the loans) suffer (if there was less readily available loans) because of people who are crying cause "OMGZ, you have to pay back college loans?!?!"  Unless colleges/govt programs are loansharking at 25%, I don't see a problem.  Anyone who wants a college loan should get one.  It's up to the individual to decide on their personal ROI.

Also, before someone accuses me of being some rich elitist, I took out loans for college because I had to as well.  And that shit was 25k a year. (20 years ago-- shit i'm old.)

 

[Msut77]

Did you read the article? Even a smart college freshman is one step removed from being a kid.

You graduated when it was much cheaper, if you have something worthwhile to contribute do so.

 

[confoosious]

Did you read the article? Even a smart college freshman is one step removed from being a kid.

You graduated when it was much cheaper, if you have something worthwhile to contribute do so.

"If you have something worthwhile to contribute do so."

25k a year is "much cheaper?" Not in 90s dollars. Not for my family. My college education wasn't a walk in the park. I worked my debt off after I graduated. I knew what I was getting myself into.

As for reading the article, yes, I read it. And that's my point. At 18, one step removed from being a kid or not, you need to take some damn responsibility for your actions. At 18, you're tried as an adult for crimes but god forbid you sign a loan document! You must not have known what you were doing.

 

[HornyPony]

Ha! FAFSA. You mean the worthless program that only offers you loans?

I just graduated, and for the last two years, I received NO financial aid. The first two years, I got money from Illinois (about $2,500 a year). Then they figured out they were broke and ditched that. I also received university scholarships in the hefty sum of $30 a semester. Finally, FAFSA just offered me loans. That's it. My parents are divorced, so my dad is a single father with 3 kids. My mom had no job and my dad hardly makes anything. Yet they still offered me shit.

And as for that whole tuition thing, you must have went to college long ago. My tuition at a state school was $16,000. Not including housing, food and supplies, which landed me at about $25,000 a year. A state school. Private schools that my friends went to charged upwards of $45,000 with everything included.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that college is a very different landscape today. It's no longer for anybody and is starting to become more and more for the rich again. (Which is why so many schools are offering free online classes with no degree. People are seeking alternative education methods.) The only reason I could afford it is because I happen to have a very generous aunt who helped me out with tuition (although I still worked full-time). Without her, if it was just my dad, I'd have upwards of $60,000 in loans right now (instead I'm at about $10k).

I don't care what school you go to, if you're looking to go to a 4 year university, you will not be able to pay for it unless your family is fairly wealthy or you have a college fund that's been accumulating for 20 years (which still might not be enough). These kids are forced into loans because they're forced into college. (Now the kids that take out ridiculous loans and get shitty degrees? That's another conversation. :lol

Hard to believe that FAFSA offered you nothing with your circumstances. I have friends who are currently attending city colleges and their FAFSA + state grants cover their education fully.

I'm actually attending a four year state school right now. I was not given any FAFSA besides a 5.5k loan approval. My school is 17k a year, including housing, food and etc. Scholarships are covering 6K of it. I'm very thankful to have parents who are willing to cover 5K of my bill. Thus, my loan is 5.5 grand and I cover the 500 left by working part time. Does everyone have parents who are able to shell out 5K a year? Of course not, and that's where FAFSA comes in (though the willingness of the parents to pay for education and the effect it has on FAFSA is a completely different conversation).

Did you RTFA because it kind of addresses your point...

A pell grant doesn't even pay for 100% of a community college anymore, and we're not even getting into room and board, books, living expenses... It's the state schools that have increased the most in recent years due to budget cuts, and because private schools were already sky high. Here is what every state subsidized school in my state costs as of last year (and there was another increase this year):

http://www.mass.edu/campuses/res_total.asp

Most community colleges here are in the 5-6k range. Most state schools are in the 8's and Umass is around 13. Without room and board ($10-11k at UMass, 6-7k elsewhere), without books ($1200 on average), without the mandatory health insurance ($1500-$2000).

These aren't adults making informed decisions when choosing schools and getting into loans that might cripple them financially, many are minors when they have to make these commitments and the basic disclosures required by the lender of any other private loan are not made. They're told that grades and SAT's are important so they can get into a "good" school and getting into a "good" school is criticial to their future.

Underemployment is a fact of life even on the money degrees in this job market.

And here are the very similar costs in my city.

http://www.cuny.edu/admissions/tuition-fees.html

The maximum Federal Pell Grant award is $5,550 for the 2012–13. Community colleges are in the 5-6k range. Four year schools in my city are 5.7k. Even if the parents of these students cannot afford $200 per year for education, nor the student can get a part time job, I don't understand how a $300 per year loan is going to crush any futures. State grants are also given to low income students, they should cover books. What's the point of dorming if you are attending a community school?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If the government got out of education completely, why shouldn't it get out of other functions? Let private companies handle law enforcement, and defense, and sanitation, and all those functions of daily life you take for granted

I'll shake on that one.

 

[Blaster man]

These problems have been building for years now.  Colleges and universities are becoming too expensive.  People need to attend local community colleges the first two years.  Those are much cheaper and frankly the education they teach is completely unnecessary for most work.  You don't need to be an expert of American history to have 99.99% of jobs for example.  If there was less demand from 4 year colleges because more people went to community college first then prices would be forced down.

In terms of people "being forced" to go to college, the fact is no one is forced to attend but it's hyperbole to insist that "if you can't afford it then you shouldn't go".  That would create a permanent subclass of poor uneducated people that become poorer every generation while the educated become more and more wealthy each generation as they constantly receive the best jobs.

A degree is very much necessary.

 

[confoosious]

You're completely ignoring the supply side.

As more and more people have bachelor's degrees, the median weekly earnings will drop because all the people with bachelor's degrees have devalued the bachelor's degree.  It's title inflation.  Today's master's degree is yesterday's bachelor degree.

A surplus of people in the workplace right now with bachelors degrees means you have all these people with those degrees working at starbucks.  Now, isn't it better if they didn't bother going to college just to end up working at starbucks from an ROI standpoint?  

I wonder what the median salary is for bachelor's degrees today vs 20 years ago or 50 years adjusted for inflation.

Getting back to the original point, if you get a loan to go to college and you get a degree in art history and end up 100k in debt, whose fault is that?  

 

[Dude009]

the sad thing to me; is people like confoosius, went to college and it likely really separated him from his peers, almost assured him of better living. (or atleast a job)

now-a-days it's the norm; like everybody is supposed to go, and most don't gain anything but debt from it.

can't help but feel it's such a fraud.  and we/the world support it so blindly.

i can learn/know the exact same things.. but that piece of paper means they're the better hire?  c'mon how messed up is that?  i'd rather the time where you went and might get the job if you seem a decent person and worth the time to train, not if you had money and bought some BS piece of paper.

true college gets you better job options.. but truly, it really shouldn't.  (i mean, it's not needed)

depends on the career obviously (i'd obviously not want a doctor learning on the job )  but for the most part a degree is totally unnecessary, yet is needed because we put so much false value in it, over the person holding it.

soon you'll need one to flip burgers.

 

[confoosious]

soon you'll need one to flip burgers.

You're not that far off. And that's partly because the economy sucks but partly because of the huge surplus of college degrees.

I hope I'm not coming off as an elitist. I firmly believe everyone should have the opportunity to go to college. However, not everyone should actually go.

I think the problem we've created is that everyone was told they should go to college. And it's just so not true.

 

[dohdough]

You're completely ignoring the supply side.
As more and more people have bachelor's degrees, the median weekly earnings will drop because all the people with bachelor's degrees have devalued the bachelor's degree. It's title inflation. Today's master's degree is yesterday's bachelor degree.

This assumes that people with graduate degrees are filling entry level jobs formerly held by undergraduate degree holders. What you happen to be ignoring is that during the recession, most companies laid off their workforce and those that remained ended up picking up the slack. If you can get 100 workers to do the work of 200 and maintain an acceptable level of profitability, why bother hiring more people?

A surplus of people in the workplace right now with bachelors degrees means you have all these people with those degrees working at starbucks. Now, isn't it better if they didn't bother going to college just to end up working at starbucks from an ROI standpoint?

Again, this is due to the economy, not a glut of graduates. Starbucks namedrop aside, what makes you think that a vast majority of the service industry would even hire a college grad when it makes more sense to hire someone without a degree?

I wonder what the median salary is for bachelor's degrees today vs 20 years ago or 50 years adjusted for inflation.

Economy was very different in 1993.

Getting back to the original point, if you get a loan to go to college and you get a degree in art history and end up 100k in debt, whose fault is that?

Why should the onus fall on some 17-22 year old kid as if the idea of going to college and incurring that kind of debt was conjured up solely in their mind without any outside influence? People don't make decisions in a vacuum.

Btw, an art history isn't worthless.

edit: Saw your new post and since I already put the effort into it, I figured I'd keep it. Feel free not to reply to it since you already addressed some points.

edit2: Part of the issue with "glut" is that income levels have been pretty stagnant for the last 30 years and in that time, the ability to to earn a decent living without a degree has been virtually decimated partially due to the successful attacks against organized labor, which puts more socio-economic pressure on kids to go into the level of debt you describe regardless of their major.

 

[confoosious]

While the idea wasn't solely conjured up in their mind, it's still their responsibility. 17/18 is a foolish age when looking back on it. But it's old enough to take responsibility for your own actions, loan documents included.

Art history isn't worthless. I never said it was. All learning to me is worthwhile. But if you get an art history degree and then lament the lack of jobs, that's on you for not understanding the market.

I would've loved to get a philosophy degree. Nope. Business degree cause I knew I was graduating with lots of debt.

 

[dohdough]

While the idea wasn't solely conjured up in their mind, it's still their responsibility. 17/18 is a foolish age when looking back on it. But it's old enough to take responsibility for your own actions.

And are we, as a society, properly equipping them to make those decisions? Of course not. I'm not saying that they should have no responsibility, but there are far too many circumstances that make it a reasonable choice. What is our collective responsibility to that student if we're insisting on requiring and hiring based on some convoluted metrics like having a degree for a job that can be done by someone with a HS diploma? What purpose does that serve? Who does that really benefit beyond marginal returns?

Art history isn't worthless. I never said it was. All learning to me is worthwhile. But if you get an art history degree and then lament the lack of jobs, that's on you for not understanding the market.

I would've loved to get a philosophy degree. Nope. Business degree cause I knew I was graduating with lots of debt.

The types of jobs that are in demand change over time. Not everyone can go into business, finance, or computer science. Lamenting the lack of jobs probably has more to do with lack of jobs in general and not lack of jobs that are centered around art history. Both of us are old enough to come from the era that it didn't matter what you got your degree in because the paper was all you needed to get your foot in somewhere to make a living wage. The old joke about never having a career or job that uses your major still applies today. If you got a degree in business and are in that industry, then good for you, but that's not the typical experience of a good number of college grads.

Hell, I've been talking about the commoditization of higher ed on vs. for years. Frankly, I'm surprised that dafoomie, out of anyone, would be the one to post a thread about it.

 

[confoosious]

Obviously what your degree is in isnt the be all and end all of what your career is. I know plenty of liberal arts majors in business. Hell, I like hiring liberal arts majors for business jobs.

But if you get an art degree and can't find a job, that's not anyone's fault but your own. You misjudged the market. You can either be practical or not. But don't go crying about loans and debt because you chose to major in art history and there are 500 applicants for every art related job. On top of that, you can't get a "business" job because you have no idea what ROI means and can't work a spreadsheet.

Hot industries constantly change but don't tell me anyone going into college in 2009 thought, "you know I think museum curators are going to be needed 100 fold by the time I graduate."

But getting back to the OP, I don't think making easier for people to get loans is a bad thing.

 

[willardhaven]

A college degree wouldn't be as important if high school prepared children for adulthood. College is becoming an extended highschool to offset the cost of education onto citizens instead of local governments.

 

[dafoomie]

And here are the very similar costs in my city.
http://www.cuny.edu/admissions/tuition-fees.html

The maximum Federal Pell Grant award is $5,550 for the 2012–13. Community colleges are in the 5-6k range. Four year schools in my city are 5.7k. Even if the parents of these students cannot afford $200 per year for education, nor the student can get a part time job, I don't understand how a $300 per year loan is going to crush any futures. State grants are also given to low income students, they should cover books. What's the point of dorming if you are attending a community school?

CUNY is the exception, not the rule, rare to see a 4 year school only asking for $5700 a year. Most state colleges are $12-15k and up, which is cheap compared to 50-60k that the elite schools get.

You don't get the maximum award unless you have 0 income with no support from your parents, or you have kids. A part time job, or a roof over your head from your parents can dramatically lower that.

It's easy to tell people not to dorm and to live at home for free but that's often not an option. Living on campus allows you to defer the expense of putting a roof over your head when you'd otherwise have to work full time.

 

[Blaster man]

I can't help but feel the point of my post was missed.

5% unemployment is considered "full employment". That means that the labor market is tight for those with college degrees. So yes, a college degree is still valuable as it has 1/2 the unemployment of those with only a high school diploma and the average wage is much higher.

Clearly it's important to work on a college degree that will result in a job but a few people choosing art history and working at Starbucks is anecdotal evidence and the chart above is factual evidence that a college degree is very valuable.

 

[confoosious]

I can't help but feel the point of my post was missed.

5% unemployment is considered "full employment". That means that the labor market is tight for those with college degrees. So yes, a college degree is still valuable as it has 1/2 the unemployment of those with only a high school diploma and the average wage is much higher.

Clearly it's important to work on a college degree that will result in a job but a few people choosing art history and working at Starbucks is anecdotal evidence and the chart above is factual evidence that a college degree is very valuable.

Your chart above doesn't restrict the data to recent college graduates does it?

 

[Blaster man]

Your chart above doesn't restrict the data to recent college graduates does it?

You're right but this is the only data that we have.

 

[confoosious]

You're right but this is the only data that we have.

Yeah I just think it's misleading because you've got accumulated data from everyone who graduated, say 40 years ago and is still working. Those "bachelor" degrees are earning 60/70/whatever while the gulf between them and the high school grads of 40 years ago who are still earning 40/50/whatever a year..

If you saw this graph for the last 5 years, I bet the gap is smaller because of the high rate of unemployment or underemployment in the recently graduated classes.

 

[kill3r7]

CUNY is the exception, not the rule, rare to see a 4 year school only asking for $5700 a year. Most state colleges are $12-15k and up, which is cheap compared to 50-60k that the elite schools get.

You don't get the maximum award unless you have 0 income with no support from your parents, or you have kids. A part time job, or a roof over your head from your parents can dramatically lower that.

It's easy to tell people not to dorm and to live at home for free but that's often not an option. Living on campus allows you to defer the expense of putting a roof over your head when you'd otherwise have to work full time.

State schools tend to be pretty cheap just about everywhere else in the US outside of the Northeast, CUNY being an outlier. Hence why I plan to move out of the tri-state area once I have kids. I believe in state tuition at school like UT($4800-$5300 depending on major), UNC ($8,340), CU Boulder or CA school system, is very low compared to what some folks pay in the Northeast. Either way the cost of attending college is still way higher than it ought to be.

 

[kill3r7]

This assumes that people with graduate degrees are filling entry level jobs formerly held by undergraduate degree holders. What you happen to be ignoring is that during the recession, most companies laid off their workforce and those that remained ended up picking up the slack. If you can get 100 workers to do the work of 200 and maintain an acceptable level of profitability, why bother hiring more people?

You hit the nail on the head. Companies today know how to run "leaner" compared to 5-6 years ago. I know of companies that have teams of 25-30 people work on projects that previously would require 100 people, plus additional contract/temp workers. Companies today know they can demand more and we seem eager to please. That's why I scratch my head every time I hear an economist on TV talking about how once the economy picks up the jobs will return. IMO there is no chance these companies revert back to their old "gluttonous" ways. Recent college grads definitely have an uphill battle ahead of them but through hustle, networking and lots of luck they'll succeed and be better off for it. I still believe that an individual is better suited to face today's economy equipped with a college degree vs not having one.

 

[Blaster man]

This from a survey of the 100 most popular majors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57325132/25-college-majors-with-the-highest-unemployment-rates/

College majors with the highest unemployment

• 1. Clinical psychology 19.5%
• 2. Miscellaneous fine arts 16.2%
• 3. United States history 15.1%
• 4. Library science 15.0%
• 5. (tie) Military technologies; educational psychology 10.9%
• 6. Architecture 10.6%
• 7. Industrial & organizational psychology 10.4%
• 8. Miscellaneous psychology 10.3%
• 9. Linguistics & comparative literature 10.2%
• 10. (tie) Visual & performing arts; engineering & industrial management 9.2%
• 11. Engineering & industrial management 9.2%
• 12. Social psychology 8.8%
• 13. International business 8.5%
• 14. Humanities 8.4%
• 15. General social sciences 8.2%
• 16. Commercial art & graphic design 8.1%
• 17. Studio art 8.0%
• 18. Pre-law & legal studies 7.9%
• 19. Materials engineering and materials science and composition & speech (tie) 7.7%
• 20. Liberal arts 7.6%
• 21. (tie) Fine arts and genetics 7.4%
• 22. Film video & photography arts and cosmetology services & culinary arts (tie) 7.3%
• 23. Philosophy & religious studies and neuroscience (tie) 7.2%
• 24. Biochemical sciences 7.1%
• 25. (tie) Journalism and sociology 7.0%

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57324669/25-college-majors-with-lowest-unemployment-rates/

College majors with lowest unemployment rates

• 1. Medical technology technician 1.4%
• 2. Nursing 2.2%
• 3. Treatment therapy professions 2.6%
• 4. Medical assisting services 2.9%
• 5. Agriculture production & management 3.0%
• 6. Industrial production technologies 3.1%
• 7. Pharmacy 3.2%
• 8. Communications & disorders sciences 3.3%
• 9. Elementary education 3.6%
• 10. Special needs education 3.6%
• 11. Miscellaneous education 3.7%
• 12. Mechanical engineering 3.8%
• 13. High school teacher 3.8%
• 14. Theology & religious vocations 4.1%
• 15. Management info systems & statistics 4.2%
• 16. General education 4.2%
• 17. Health & medical administrative services 4.3%
• 18. Transportation science & technologies 4.4%
• 19. Finance 4.5%
• 20. Physics 4.5%
• 21. PE/health education 4.5%
• 22. Criminal justice and fire protection 4.7%
• 23. PE/Park & Recreation 4.8%
• 24. Civil engineering 4.9%
• 25. (tie) Electrical engineering; environmental science; math 5%

Some of the majors that didn't make the list of the 100 most popular majors also enjoy low unemployment. In fact, if you're an astrophysicist or geophysics engineer, you apparently don't have to worry at all about finding a job. Here are five less popular majors, all requiring advanced math skills, that enjoy low unemployment:

• Astrophysics/astronomy 0%
• Geological and geophysics engineering 0%
• Physical science 2.5%
• Geosciences 3.2%
• Math/computer science 3.5%

 

[confoosious]

I got a 2.5 in miscellaneous fine arts!  Why can't I get a job!  I shouldn't have to pay back this loan!

 

[willardhaven]

To be fair, these are kids who may or may not have college-educated parents.

My parents never went to college so to them college = great career. I would have made more money going into a trade union than going to school.

I think people conflate college and job training. These are two very distinct things. If you majored in art, you should understand the field. If you want to make art into a career you have to learn to run a small business and how to network. An art major can still find lucrative employment, although it might not be a 9-5.
 

 

[UncleBob]

Food for thought: If potential students didn't have such easy access at free (for now) money, would tuition rates be so high?

You can't charge thousands of dollars for tuition if it means you have little-to-no students because they can't pay it.

 

[kill3r7]

To be fair, these are kids who may or may not have college-educated parents.

My parents never went to college so to them college = great career. I would have made more money going into a trade union than going to school.

I think people conflate college and job training. These are two very distinct things. If you majored in art, you should understand the field. If you want to make art into a career you have to learn to run a small business and how to network. An art major can still find lucrative employment, although it might not be a 9-5.



For decades college education was reserved for the privileged. Prior to WWII only a small percentage of the population attended college. Hence why our parents' generation stills views college through rosé colored glasses and sees it as a way out. For them a college degree still holds a certain level of prestige. I can't say they are completely wrong considering the perception/stigma that exists between college grads vs non grads.

I do not believe that education is a bad thing. It's probably true that some folks shouldn't attend college but the vast majority of college grads are better of for getting a college degree.

 

[Blaster man]

If you look at those lists of employment/unemployment by major, I think what it shows is that as a society we've all become privileged.  100 years ago people would have taken the best paying job with the best employment prospects.  These days people want to do what they enjoy and (for lack of better terms) follow their dreams.  When so many people are taking pyschology as their major that 20% of them can't find work of any kind after graduation, something is wrong. 

Perhaps the government should target loans and especially grants at areas that need workers and have the lowest unemployment rate.  Maybe everyone can't handle geophysics engineering?  How many have tried and how many don't want to do engineering because they heard it's hard or because of some nerd stigma.  The same thing for computer science.  Do people want to get out of school with close to a 100% chance of finding a good paying job or not?  There's negative steriotypes about many of these fields and because of that people don't want to pursue them - espcially getting started with a couple of classes in high school with it's greater social pressures.  Maybe they should force everyone to take an entry level computer programming class in high school along with english, history, phys ed, etc. 

 

[confoosious]

"Last year, 33.5 percent of Americans ages 25 to 29 had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 24.7 percent in 1995, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In 1975, the share was 21.9 percent."

See the problem here?  In our parent's generation, having a college degree meant something.   Where do you think those extra 11% of college grads go?  The ivy leagues aren't admitting 50k students a year.  They go to these podunk colleges (yeah yeah call me an elitist)  which while they might be getting good educations, don't justify the ROI.   So you have all these college grads who think a bachelor's degree means big bucks but it doesn't because of all these people with degrees.  11% is not just 11%, the population has grown too.

Colleges should be harder to get into but loans and grants should be more readily available to those who need it.

It's the longtail that's killing everyone. 

 

[Billytwoshoes]

I'll try to keep my anecdotal story short:

I graduated in 2006 with my bachelors in electrical engineering, when my freshman year state university tuition was around $3K annually (I know, pretty cheap by today's standards).  During my last year, the tuition went up to around $5K, and last I heard its around $10K.  That is a pretty big jump in tuition costs in only a decade, but even then I still think $10K is manageable without taking out massive loans.

At 16 I started working, started saving, not necessarily for college, but just because I thought you should.  By the time I was 18, I had around $15-20K in the bank.  I was just working at a local grocery store, but I made sure I wasn't doing piddly 8-10 hours a week work shifts, but I tried to work at least 20 hours a week, usually around 30.  It's high school, kids have the time, the classes are not that stressful, and I think all teens should get some early work experience in.

So for starters on my opinion, teenage kids (and likewise parents to teach them) need to get out there when they can and work wherever they can.  I don't want to hear stories of how hard it is to find a job (or even how hard high school is while working, really, it isn't at all), at that age, even nowadays there is still some job out there to earn money.  Do it now while you don't have to worry about rent living with your parents, and actually start saving now.

What I had saved at 18, I was good enough to go, but even then I started looking into all scholarship options.  Now I'm not sure how it is today, but back then I was awarded at least one scholarship for just applying (not many people knew about it, and it was open to everyone), and another for doing a short interview (which there were only 3 applicants!) and was selected.  For the first two years I had an extra $2,000 a year in scholarships to spend on books or whatever else.  It may not be as lucrative today, but you won't know if you don't try.  Quick fact, a Ctrl+F of that article brings up 63 loan instances, but 0 scholarship mentions.  k

And finally, yes, it is an option to live at home with your parents, which was how I was able to save even more money while still working 25-40 hours a week while going to college (40 hours wasn't my choice though).  If its only a 10-20 mile drive, it would still be much cheaper if you have the option to save more money even accounting for gas.  If your intended school is farther than that, consider an alternative that is closer.  Who cares if you live with your mom and / or dad until you are 22, you'll be able to move out when you are ready with more funds than those who craved independence at a cost of much higher debt.

The points the article bring up are valid, the system is pushing a lifestyle on impressionable teens that were not given proper parental guidance, and kids are sold on living their dreams with their bachelors in tow.  Costs have gone up more than they should, for a qualification that is become less and less optional.  There is just more complaining in the article than there are solutions given, placing more of the emphasis on what the system can do for them, rather than giving valuable advice for teens to better themselves in the somewhat broken situation.  I feel both positions are equally important.

Plus, I know its Rolling Stone, but quoting vodka guzzling and weed peddling sources is a bit unsavory, just saying.  Sorry for the long post, but to be fair it was a long article to read.

 

[Blaster man]

I'll try to keep my anecdotal story short:

I graduated in 2006 with my bachelors in electrical engineering, when my freshman year state university tuition was around $3K annually (I know, pretty cheap by today's standards). During my last year, the tuition went up to around $5K, and last I heard its around $10K. That is a pretty big jump in tuition costs in only a decade, but even then I still think $10K is manageable without taking out massive loans.

At 16 I started working, started saving, not necessarily for college, but just because I thought you should. By the time I was 18, I had around $15-20K in the bank. I was just working at a local grocery store, but I made sure I wasn't doing piddly 8-10 hours a week work shifts, but I tried to work at least 20 hours a week, usually around 30. It's high school, kids have the time, the classes are not that stressful, and I think all teens should get some early work experience in.

So for starters on my opinion, teenage kids (and likewise parents to teach them) need to get out there when they can and work wherever they can. I don't want to hear stories of how hard it is to find a job (or even how hard high school is while working, really, it isn't at all), at that age, even nowadays there is still some job out there to earn money. Do it now while you don't have to worry about rent living with your parents, and actually start saving now.

What I had saved at 18, I was good enough to go, but even then I started looking into all scholarship options. Now I'm not sure how it is today, but back then I was awarded at least one scholarship for just applying (not many people knew about it, and it was open to everyone), and another for doing a short interview (which there were only 3 applicants!) and was selected. For the first two years I had an extra $2,000 a year in scholarships to spend on books or whatever else. It may not be as lucrative today, but you won't know if you don't try. Quick fact, a Ctrl+F of that article brings up 63 loan instances, but 0 scholarship mentions. k

And finally, yes, it is an option to live at home with your parents, which was how I was able to save even more money while still working 25-40 hours a week while going to college (40 hours wasn't my choice though). If its only a 10-20 mile drive, it would still be much cheaper if you have the option to save more money even accounting for gas. If your intended school is farther than that, consider an alternative that is closer. Who cares if you live with your mom and / or dad until you are 22, you'll be able to move out when you are ready with more funds than those who craved independence at a cost of much higher debt.

The points the article bring up are valid, the system is pushing a lifestyle on impressionable teens that were not given proper parental guidance, and kids are sold on living their dreams with their bachelors in tow. Costs have gone up more than they should, for a qualification that is become less and less optional. There is just more complaining in the article than there are solutions given, placing more of the emphasis on what the system can do for them, rather than giving valuable advice for teens to better themselves in the somewhat broken situation. I feel both positions are equally important.

Plus, I know its Rolling Stone, but quoting vodka guzzling and weed peddling sources is a bit unsavory, just saying. Sorry for the long post, but to be fair it was a long article to read.

It sounds like you had a good opportunity and I do agree with you that more people should attend a college/university closer to home. Fact is, dorms are outrageously expensive and college practically force freshmen into them if they don't live close by. Clearly your story brings up some good points on what's going wrong these days and frankly you can rent an apartment in some pretty expensive cities for what they charge for dorm rooms - especially when you consider it's usually 2 people paying that rate for a single room!

That aside there are definitely people in situations that don't have a lot of options other than living in a dorm on campus. Some folks live in rural America, I have family that live in a county that has less than 10,000 people in it. There's a single high school for the entire county, no college or universities, and most people have to drive to work. So if they were even able to find a job in high school (keeping in mind it took them 2 hours to get to school and back), they'd have to have a car and car insurance.

 

[confoosious]

I'd want my kids to go at least 5 hours away for college. College is a wonderful time and I don't want them missing out on all the aspects of college life by coming home all the time or having to commute. But that's just personal preference.

 

[Billytwoshoes]

Fact is, dorms are outrageously expensive and college practically force freshmen into them if they don't live close by.

Very true, my local state university (the one I attended) has been ripping up some of parking lots and replacing them with dorms in the past few years, definitely trying to push the "freshman experience", which they profit off of heavily.

That aside there are definitely people in situations that don't have a lot of options other than living in a dorm on campus. Some folks live in rural America, I have family that live in a county that has less than 10,000 people in it. There's a single high school for the entire county, no college or universities, and most people have to drive to work. So if they were even able to find a job in high school (keeping in mind it took them 2 hours to get to school and back), they'd have to have a car and car insurance.

Good points, honestly in rural areas nowadays it would be very expensive to go to a traditional university, I guess you have to bank more on scholarships and hopefully minimize the loans.

It sounds like you had a good opportunity and I do agree with you that more people should attend a college/university closer to home.

I do admit that I had some good opportunities not everyone has (and I feel blessed for them), but I don't think I had that unique of a situation. Around half of the US population live in as urban or more urbanized area with at least one university close by, some with much better public transportation. I personally think we just have a hard time as a country cementing the mindset to save more and live at or beneath your means. Can't really blame teenagers for blindly following these loans, when they see their parents rack up credit card debt and get into 40+ year mortgages on homes they can't afford.

Not trying to sound judgmental here, but that's just my take on the way a good portion of the US handle their finances.

I'd want my kids to go at least 5 hours away for college. College is a wonderful time and I don't want them missing out on all the aspects of college life by coming home all the time or having to commute. But that's just personal preference.

I completely understand this, if my kids want to get away from us, I'd support that. I'd offer a most cost effective solution at home, and let them decide which lifestyle is more important to them. I'd gladly help out with part of their finances (hopefully I can when that time comes...), but in terms of the total costs, they have to figure out how to make that happen. Whether or not they would turn to loans is their decision, but not one I would openly support.

At least that is better than some parents who will pay all of their kids college bills without question, not really a good start to their aspiring independence. Hopefully I would of been a good enough parent that they would make the right choice for themselves.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Interesting article in regards to education:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324165204579028771723069750.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

[confoosious]

Interesting article in regards to education:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324165204579028771723069750.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp#articleTabs%3Darticle

No it's not.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

No it's not.

k cool.

 

[confoosious]

Calling that an article implies some sort of journalism. It's an opinion piece that's about as valid as a slidecage post.

 

[egofed]

Interesting article in regards to education:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324165204579028771723069750.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp#articleTabs%3Darticle

Actually I believe this article nails it on the head. A true free market college education without gov't backed loans would be much cheaper. Like Bob said, tuition would come down if no one was attending. We have artificially inflated prices through tax payer backed, easy to get loans. Screw with the free market and watch shit go haywire, then complain about it when it does. Our modis operandi for quite a while now....

 

[Blaster man]

Actually I believe this article nails it on the head. A true free market college education without gov't backed loans would be much cheaper. Like Bob said, tuition would come down if no one was attending. We have artificially inflated prices through tax payer backed, easy to get loans. Screw with the free market and watch shit go haywire, then complain about it when it does. Our modis operandi for quite a while now....

Yes the prices would come down but that doesn't do much for those people that come from an extremely poor background and don't have any way to fund their education.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Yes the prices would come down but that doesn't do much for those people that come from an extremely poor background and don't have any way to fund their education.

Are we therefore obligated to take care of those people? Is it a role of a federal government to take care of our education? Personally I would not care if this happened on a state level.