The Great College Hoax [Archive]

View Full Version : The Great College Hoax

Pages : [1] 2

Doctor_Wu

01-21-2009, 04:30 PM

I saw this in Forbes this month... (thanks SD!)

I found this interesting, and in line with what I've thought about college since graduating and marrying into student loan debt. It's kindof long... but we can hack it.

The Great College Hoax
Kathy Kristof 02.02.09, 12:00 AM ET (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060_print.html)

As steadily as ivy creeps up the walls of its well-groomed campuses, the education industrial complex has cultivated the image of college as a sure-fire path to a life of social and economic privilege.

Joel Kellum says he's living proof that the claim is a lie. A 40-year-old Los Angeles resident, Kellum did everything he was supposed to do to get ahead in life. He worked hard as a high schooler, got into the University of Virginia and graduated with a bachelor's degree in history.

Accepted into the California Western School of Law, a private San Diego institution, Kellum couldn't swing the $36,000 in annual tuition with financial aid and part-time work. So he did what friends and professors said was the smart move and took out $60,000 in student loans.

Kellum's law school sweetheart, Jennifer Coultas, did much the same. By the time they graduated in 1995, the couple was $194,000 in debt. They eventually married and each landed a six-figure job. Yet even with Kellum moonlighting, they had to scrounge to come up with $145,000 in loan payments. With interest accruing at up to 12% a year, that whittled away only $21,000 in principal. Their remaining bill: $173,000 and counting.

Kellum and Coultas divorced last year. Each cites their struggle with law school debt as a major source of stress on their marriage. "Two people with this much debt just shouldn't be together," Kellum says.

The two disillusioned attorneys were victims of an unfolding education hoax on the middle class that's just as insidious, and nearly as sweeping, as the housing debacle. The ingredients are strikingly similar, too: Misguided easy-money policies that are encouraging the masses to go into debt; a self-serving establishment trading in half-truths that exaggerate the value of its product; plus a Wall Street money machine dabbling in outright fraud as it foists unaffordable debt on the most vulnerable marks.

College graduates will earn $1 million more than those with only a high school diploma, brags Mercy College radio ads running in the New York area. The $1 million shibboleth is a favorite of college barkers.

Like many good cons, this one contains a kernel of truth. Census figures show that college grads earn an average of $57,500 a year, which is 82% more than the $31,600 high school alumni make. Multiply the $25,900 difference by the 40 years the average person works and, sure enough, it comes to a tad over $1 million.

But anybody who has gotten a passing grade in statistics knows what's wrong with this line of argument. A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college. To cite the extreme and obvious example: Bill Gates is rich because he knows how to run a business, not because he matriculated at Harvard. Finishing his degree wouldn't have increased his income.

All the while students have been lulled into thinking of the extra $1 million that will be theirs, they have been forced to disgorge an ever larger fraction of it in pursuit of the degree. While the premium that college grads earn over high schoolers has remained relatively constant over the past five years, the cost of acquiring a degree has risen at twice the rate of inflation, dramatically undermining any value a sheepskin adds.

Offsetting that million-dollar income discrepancy is the $46,700 four-year cost of tuition, fees, books, room and board at a public school and $99,900 at a private one--even after financial aid, scholarships and grants. Add all this to the equation and college grads don't pull even with high school grads in lifetime income until age 33 on average, the College Board says. Even that doesn't include the $125,000 in pay students forgo over four years.

"I call it the million-dollar misunderstanding," says Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, of the prevailing propaganda.

Not only are college numbers spun. Some are patently spurious, says Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA. Law schools lure in minority students to improve diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar. Schools goose employment statistics by temporarily hiring new grads and spotlighting kids who land top-paying jobs, while glossing over far-lower average incomes. The one certainty: The average law grad owes $100,000 in student debt.

"There are a lot of aspects of selling education that are tinged with consumer fraud," Sander says. "There is a definite conspiracy to lead students down a primrose path."

Warped as the numbers are, they don't begin to account for the hidden cost of higher education: financing it. Borrowing has doubled over the past decade, to roughly $85 billion in new student loans in the 2007--08 academic year, bringing total student debt owed to well over half a trillion dollars. The average borrower went $19,200 into debt for a diploma in 2004, a 58% increase after inflation since 1993, according to the Project on Student Debt.

The proportion of students who graduate with more than $40,000 in debt jumped sixfold during that period, to 7.7% of the 1 million grads in 2004, or 77,500 people. Most will struggle for more than a decade to work it off, assuming relatively low 6.8% interest rates, the Project on Student Debt says.

For many, the terms are far worse. A decade ago nearly all student lending was of the low-cost, federally guaranteed variety, most of it with 6% to 8% interest kicking in only after a student left school. As costs outpaced such financing over the past decade, the share of student loans from "private" lenders rose from 7% to 23% of the market, or $20 billion in the 2007--08 academic year.

The rise of private student lending closely paralleled the subprime mortgage boom, which went from 8% of home loan originations in 2003 to 20% in 2006, before the housing meltdown sent that mortgage sector over a cliff. Private student loans resemble subprime mortgages in other ways, too. As banks and brokers did with subprime home loans, colleges and the lenders in cahoots with them commonly market private student loans alongside lower-cost alternatives, blurring the differences.

The key one is cost. Many private lenders tack 10% origination fees onto 18% variable interest rates (there is no legal limit), which begin accruing the moment a loan is funded. That has made private loans more than twice as profitable as government-guaranteed ones and lured heavy involvement from Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has called private lending "the Wild West of the student loan industry." Some problems he notes smack of subprime mortgage lending: lax disclosure requirements, variable interest rates that compound and make paying off the principal a Sisyphean task, and kickback agreements by which lenders pay loan originators--in this case, colleges--a cut of their revenues.

State and federal authorities have taken action to curb the outright bribery. No less illustrious institutions of higher learning than Columbia University, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania paid $1 million-plus each to settle charges of wrongdoing in the student loan market.

Yet investigations still found "troubling, deceptive and often illegal practices . . . involving lenders, educational institutions and financial aid officials," according to Cuomo's office and the Congressional Committee on Education & Labor. Don't count on Washington to provide any more safeguards than it did with housing. Department of Education oversight of the student loan industry has been deemed insufficient by the Government Accountability Office.

Lacking honest input, three-quarters of high schoolers still seek to go on to college, many deluded about the financial prospects it holds, says American Institutes for Research's Schneider. "Part of the drive is the idea it pays," he says. "We need somebody making more realistic statements about the risks."

The risks are hefty. Half of students entering college never earn a degree. Six in ten African-Americans depart without one. "Hundreds of thousands of young people leave our higher education system unsuccessfully, burdened with large student loans that must be repaid, but without the benefit of the wages a college degree provides," warned a 2004 Education Trust study.

Among the half of entering students fortunate enough to get through college, millions go into debt for two-year associate degrees. These alumni outearn high school grads by only $8,400 a year. (Community colleges currently enroll 11.5 million.)

Tracy Kratzer, 27, enrolled in the International Academy of Design & Technology in Orlando, Fla. in 2003. With visions of making big bucks as a Web designer, she didn't give much thought to the interest rate on her loan from Sallie Mae, the Fannie Mae of student lending. Kratzer didn't know it at the time, but she was part of an experiment that has proved disastrous for borrowers and shareholders of Sallie's parent, SLM Corp. It's called "nontraditional" lending.

"That's not a sociological term," Albert Lord, chief executive of SLM Corp., told an audience of financial analysts last fall. "It's basically kids and parents with poor credit who are at the wrong schools."

Sallie Mae was set up by the government in 1972 and began privatizing its ownership in 1997. It began nontraditional lending in the easy-money heyday of 2002, when it cut deals with dozens of trade schools to become their preferred subprime student lender. Over the next four years Sallie doled out about $5 billion to people like Kratzer, waiving the credit scores and cosigners formerly required for its loans.

The bill arrived last year after nontraditional borrowers began entering the workforce. Of the half no longer studying, Sallie had written off 15% of loans by last June, the most recent period for which it has released figures; another 24% were delinquent. Among traditional loans for four-year universities, writeoffs ran 2% and delinquencies 4.9%.

SLM set aside $884 million to cover these bad loans in 2007 and posted its first loss. It expects nontraditional-loan writeoffs to peak this year. SLM's stock has lost 80% since the beginning of 2007, wiping out $15 billion in value. Lord, who was unavailable for comment, is a 28-year company veteran. He made $72 million as chief executive in 2007 by unloading SLM stock before it tanked. Sallie largely abandoned nontraditional lending last January.

That's little consolation to Kratzer. Shortly after graduating with an associate of arts degree, she discovered that the high-paying jobs she'd hoped to qualify for go to people with bachelor's degrees and years of experience. After a bout of unemployment, when she lived off credit cards, Kratzer recently found an hourly job as a clerk at a magazine, where she earns less than the average high school grad. In the meantime her $14,000 student loan has mushroomed to $27,000--more than she makes in a year--and continues to accrue interest at 18% a year. She says collection agents for Sallie and others hound her to hit up relatives for the money she owes.

"My mom works in a restaurant. My stepdad is in prison," says Kratzer. "There are so many people like me out there. They don't get seen. They don't get heard."

Mindy Babbitt entered Davenport University in her mid-20s to study accounting. Unable to cover the costs with her previous earnings as a cosmetologist, she took out a $35,000 student loan at 9% interest, figuring her postgraduate income would cover the cost.

Instead, the entry-level job her bachelor's degree got her barely covered living expenses. Babbitt deferred loan repayments and was then laid off for a time. Now 41 and living in Plainwell, Mich., she is earning $41,000 a year, or about $10,000 more than the average high school graduate makes. But since she graduated, Babbitt's student loan balance has more than doubled, to $87,000, and she despairs she'll never pay it off.

"Unless I win the lottery or get a job paying a lot more, my student debts are going to follow me to the grave," she says.

Babbitt is no oddity. In fact, one in four college grads takes home considerably less than the top quartile of high school grads, according to a College Board study. Even some people with doctorates earn less than people without so much as an associate degree, it shows.

For an indication of how out of touch the degree factories are with economic reality there's no need to pick on UCLA's course in queer musicology or Edith Cowan University's degree in "surf science." U.S. universities also minted 37,000 history degrees in 2006, including 852 Ph.D.s. That for a field with fewer than 500 job openings and average pay of $48,500. Plumbers, by contrast, enjoyed 16,000 new jobs that year and earned only $6,000 less than historians, census figures show.

Of course, not all history majors want to become historians. For many a bachelor's degree is nothing but a stepping-stone to a professional degree. Joel Kellum is one of those. After graduating from the University of Virginia, he got into California Western. Kellum approached a law professor about the wisdom of borrowing for the tuition.

"He said, 'Don't worry,'" Kellum recalls. "'We had the same thing when we were in school.'"

Kellum filled out a fat packet of forms in his school's financial aid office. Weeks later, he says, he got a call asking him to sign over a check to the school without any discussion of the loan terms. Kellum complied.

Only after he graduated, and his payments came due, did he dig into the details. What Kellum discovered was that, instead of cheap government loans, the bulk of his debt was in Signature loans: variable-rate debt from Sallie Mae. Kellum's variable rate has ticked as high as 9% and his ex-wife's to as much as 12%.

Like many grads, Kellum and Coultas hit bumps along their career paths. They deferred payments once when they were unemployed and twice more after their children were born. Each time, Kellum says, Sallie Mae tacked on fees for the delay. When he was a few days late making payments, he says, he got hit with more fees, which also accrued interest, and with a scolding.

"When you're a second late, you get 20 or 30 calls," he says. "It [Sallie Mae's Signature loan] is coated as a sweet government loan, but you can get better interest rates, and better treatment, borrowing from Vito in downtown Brooklyn."

Like Vito, private student lenders don't dwell on the dollar cost of compound interest. Cathelyn Gregoire says she applied for financial aid at the Tampa campus of the design school Kratzer attended and was assured she'd receive a loan at a fixed 7% rate. Three months after classes began Gregoire received a $14,000 loan. Only after graduating did she discover she was being charged a variable 13.25%, plus a "supplemental fee" of 6%. Her loan balance had jumped to $20,000 by the end of 2007.

Gregoire is now a plaintiff in a federal suit in Connecticut, accusing Sallie Mae of targeting minorities with deceptive lending. Her lawyers are trying to make it a class action.

Sallie Mae denies wrongdoing and distributes rate disclosures when students apply for loans, according to spokesperson Thomas Joyce. Sallie's disclosure document warns in capital letters that the rate a borrower sees may not be the one he gets.

Joyce says Sallie's borrowers receive detailed paperwork within ten days of funding and can rescind their loans then. In reality loan checks often go directly to schools after classes have begun. To rescind a loan a student must get the college to return the money. The student must then find new funding or drop out.

Education lenders, unlike other consumer financiers, are not required to provide Truth in Lending disclosures before reeling in borrowers. A law passed last year requires advanced disclosure, but not until 2010.

Get caught in this quagmire and you're stuck for good. Consumers who go on a credit card binge stand a good chance of getting debt discharged in bankruptcy. Not so if they take out a loan to educate themselves. Those loans, per the 2005 bankruptcy law, are not dischargeable. One reason: Without this exception, every student would run through a bankruptcy between graduation and starting a career.

Who gets stuck with these toxic loans? As with subprime mortgages, the people who can least afford them. A disproportionate number of high-interest student loans go to low-income students attending for-profit institutions, according to a 2008 study by Charlene Wear Simmons, assistant director of the California Research Bureau, an arm of the state government.

"Borrowing, combined with other risk factors for not completing higher education (such as working too many hours, lack of adequate preparation and part-time attendance), puts many students, especially low-income and first-generation students, at a particular disadvantage," says a 2005 study by Lawrence Gladieux, an education policy consultant, and Laura Perna, assistant professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania.

It's too late to save the country from the housing finance bubble. But the college bubble is not quite as far along.

Hawk2007

01-21-2009, 04:33 PM

Oh boy, if you got me started on colleges nowadays, I think I would have about 9,000 total posts under the belt by the time I was over.

I'm closing my own can of worms. We'll see what other members contribute, but what the doc posted is very true.

SlickEnW

01-21-2009, 04:46 PM

Hawk2007

01-21-2009, 04:53 PM

But a few things struck me as odd. They don't mention degrees such as comp sci and business. Historians can't really...i mean, honestly I don't know what type of money making ventures a historian can be used for on a wide scale. I can see where they got the sub 900 available jobs figure from, and the amount of individuals graduating...its just out of whack.

But the students also need to prepare and plan (as I was told yesterday). I've switched my major three times because after working in the industry, it wasn't really that exciting. I'm glad I only had to waste a little of my life figuring out that it wasn't for me, all while padding my resume and getting work experience vs those who are a slave to the 4.0 and are too busy to get any experience.

There are A LOT of college degrees that are pretty much worthless unless you plan on teaching primary/secondary (not a bad job at all), or continuing the cycle and being a college level educator sending more kids into the path of emptiness.

Truth be told, the cleaning staff at some Ivy league schools make more money than the undergrads that graduate from those programs. You know, how they spend all four years surrounded by ivory towers enlightening themselves with discussions about how much BHO wants to help the poor, but yet completely ignore the janitorial staff that may themselves or have family relatives that consist of that oppressed class.

I can virually guarantee you that I can find undergrads that privately (the same way half of liberals think Conservatives are just closet racists) think blue collar work like plumbing is below them. But, I guarantee you that I could start a plumbing business and kick all of their asses (on average) in salaries. Sure, some of them will eventually become the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, but they're few and far between.

Hawk2007

01-21-2009, 04:55 PM

Smart Money, January 2009 ran an article very similar to what Wu had above. It was a little less doomsday and sad (with the divorce), but it had real data regarding how the ivy league schools are basically a waste of money even if you earn a little more compared to State U once you get out. (I don't recall if it went into some of the graduate/professional programs at these schools, but that's in a different class in my book. Some of those programs are worth the money)

SlickEnW

01-21-2009, 05:06 PM

I can virually guarantee you that I can find undergrads that privately (the same way half of liberals think Conservatives are just closet racists) think blue collar work like plumbing is below them. But, I guarantee you that I could start a plumbing business and kick all of their asses (on average) in salaries. Sure, some of them will eventually becoming the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, but they're few and far between.

Yeah, but thats not how it was back in the day. I mean, was it? I don't know.

You know, how back in the day (as stated in the article) having a Bachelor's was prime time, with high school being the meal ticket, and doctorate meant $$$$, but with the already stated dilusion of the marketplace and...well...some employers think of having a Bachelor's as a "paying your dues" sort of gig. Most every application i've seen for anything over "oppressed peon II" requires a degree.

Sigh, the abundance of education for all.

Hawk2007

01-21-2009, 05:10 PM

Yeah, but thats not how it was back in the day. I mean, was it? I don't know.

You know, how back in the day (as stated in the article) having a Bachelor's was prime time, with high school being the meal ticket, and doctorate meant $$$$, but with the already stated dilusion of the marketplace and...well...some employers think of having a Bachelor's as a "paying your dues" sort of gig. Most every application i've seen for anything over "oppressed peon II" requires a degree.

Sigh, the abundance of education for all.

The problem is so many counselors push college that it has basically watered down the value of the degree.

It's just going to continue to get worse.

SlickEnW

01-21-2009, 05:15 PM

The remedy is no better. Its tough to find experience in a market that
A) Has laid off but qualified professionals seeking for the same gig.
B) In an avoidance to obtain a degree from a cupcake college, take on a full load at a prestigious school and take on loans to avoid work (for people who won't want to hire you anyway because of your schedule).
C) Firms that require degrees to weed out the other half of the population.

Anyone want to speculate on a solution?

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 05:25 PM

Wow, does this hit home :lol:

International Academy of Design & Technology in Orlando, Fla, my g/f son wanted to go to this place but wasn't accepted for the same thing as the young lady in that article - so he enrolled in Drexel instead at $40k a year :eek: Guess who is co-signing the student loans - his MOM - a single parent and the Dad isn't providing crappola. I said bad, bad move lady friend - you are gonna so sink when he finishes his schooling and he finds out unless he has already landed a job while on co-op - that he needs experience to get a good paying job. YOU will be liable for those loans as a co-signer when he can't pay up. There was no talking her out of it - he was a straight A student - he "deserved" the education :rolleyes:

On the other hand my son went to Community College for two years - paid his own way - worked his way through college - went onto a 2-year University to finish up to get his degree. All the while working and earning big bucks. The last 1-1/2 yrs of his schooling I said with the money you are making (he paid the last year in cash), time to start paying off your school loans to be debt free by the time you graduate. Which he did so - he was debt free when he graduated. I saw what Sallie Mae was going to do to him with interest accruing and said you don't want this happening - not when you are making this kind of money and pissing it away. Think smart with your money - not stupid. He took at look at the numbers I crunched and got the picture right away. Sometimes a parent needs to guide them financially through this horrible nightmare of financial disaster called "student loans".

Today he is employed full-time and with putting 25% of his paycheck into investments in less than three years he will accumulate $50k easily, if not more, and still be debt free.

If parents could do one thing for their kids, it would be to tell them, sometimes there are better ways to approach college than what they are telling you.

My son is 22 years old.

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 05:32 PM

There are A LOT of college degrees that are pretty much worthless unless you plan on teaching primary/secondary (not a bad job at all), or continuing the cycle and being a college level educator sending more kids into the path of emptiness.

Truth be told, the cleaning staff at some Ivy league schools make more money than the undergrads that graduate from those programs. You know, how they spend all four years surrounded by ivory towers enlightening themselves with discussions about how much BHO wants to help the poor, but yet completely ignore the janitorial staff that may themselves or have family relatives that consist of that oppressed class.

I can virually guarantee you that I can find undergrads that privately (the same way half of liberals think Conservatives are just closet racists) think blue collar work like plumbing is below them. But, I guarantee you that I could start a plumbing business and kick all of their asses (on average) in salaries. Sure, some of them will eventually becoming the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, but they're few and far between.

Funny you say that Hawk, because my one niece's husband is an Electrician at a College and I'm guessing he makes pretty damn good bucks there, as they live in a $400k home :lol: She's a teacher and makes good money, but for them to be living where they are, he has to be pulling in some good money as well where he is working.

dsh101

01-21-2009, 06:17 PM

On the other hand my son went to Community College for two years - paid his own way - worked his way through college - went onto a 2-year University to finish up to get his degree. All the while working and earning big bucks. The last 1-1/2 yrs of his schooling I said with the money you are making (he paid the last year in cash), time to start paying off your school loans to be debt free by the time you graduate. Which he did so - he was debt free when he graduated. I saw what Sallie Mae was going to do to him with interest accruing and said you don't want this happening - not when you are making this kind of money and pissing it away. Think smart with your money - not stupid. He took at look at the numbers I crunched and got the picture right away. Sometimes a parent needs to guide them financially through this horrible nightmare of financial disaster called "student loans".

Today he is employed full-time and with putting 25% of his paycheck into investments in less than three years he will accumulate $50k easily, if not more, and still be debt free.

If parents could do one thing for their kids, it would be to tell them, sometimes there are better ways to approach college than what they are telling you.

My son is 22 years old.
Well done, that's how you're supposed to do it.

When I entered school I had a fair college fund started in the 80's by my grandparents, but it had taken a huge hit in early 2000's and so by the time I got to school I had enough to pay tuition, room, and board for one year. For years two and three I had to take out loans in addition to working part time to pay rent. For year fours and five (I stayed to get a second degree), I was able to pay my tuition and living expenses in full based on the paid internship I had landed and continuing to work part-time during the year.

I don't even know what the interest rate on my loans would have been, but I knew payment didn't start until 6 months after graduation. So I moved back in with my parents, put every cent of my now full time pay into savings, and cut a check for the entire amount with a week to spare before my first payment was due.

I was lucky in that I only accumulated $16,000 in student loans over the course of my degrees, while I've got friends upwards of $70,000 thanks to their private school educations. But it also wasn't easy moving back in with my parents, or putting away those "big' paychecks I was getting without blowing it all on new toys. I know people can get caught by these things through no fault of their own, but I also know a lot of people share the blame for their situation. Poor planning and living beyond your means is a good way to let that debt pile up. I'm still amazed whenever I talk to a friend who is employed full time and living rent-free with his or her parents, and yet they still "never have money". Where does it go?

rrc06

01-21-2009, 06:22 PM

lobo411

01-21-2009, 06:26 PM

Accepted into the California Western School of Law,

Cal Western is a crap school. It's practically a correspondence college. He's lucky he even found a job! ;)

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 07:21 PM

Cal Western is a crap school. It's practically a correspondence college. He's lucky he even found a job! ;)

He still got a Law Degree, and is a Lawyer and is able to practice. He was able to take the Bar Exam. You certainly do look down on educational pursuits don't you :rolleyes:

Take that Law Degree, move to another State, study up, take the Bar Exam there, get a better paying job - pay less in expenses and start paying down the student loans. There are ways out of the financial hole. One doesn't have to remain in that area to practice law, they can move around, as long as they are able to pass the Bar Exam in another state.

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 07:23 PM

so true --- State U gets the job done unless you need a job that requires connections (business, certain law jobs, etc.). If you are considering something in the healthcare field, you def. dont need the Ivy league debt to follow you around the rest of your life.

Yep, the health care field leaves it wide open - as long as you are able to pass the Board requirements in other states - if you wish to move around. It's not nearly as costly to get an education if you go into this field, with the exception of becoming a doctor, or along that line.

Tony_Danza

01-21-2009, 07:45 PM

$194,000 in debt and they broke up? Sissies. We're staring down the barrel of $350,000 of student loan debt and still going strong.

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 07:50 PM

$194,000 in debt and they broke up? Sissies. We're staring down the barrel of $350,000 of student loan debt and still going strong.

Me thinks they lived beyond their means, if they couldn't handle the payments.

Hawk2007

01-21-2009, 07:54 PM

Funny you say that Hawk, because my one niece's husband is an Electrician at a College and I'm guessing he makes pretty damn good bucks there, as they live in a $400k home :lol: She's a teacher and makes good money, but for them to be living where they are, he has to be pulling in some good money as well where he is working.

He's probably good at what he does which is why he's doing so well.

udub4life

01-21-2009, 08:21 PM

College is purely what you get out of it. If you take a bunch of slacker classes, major in history, and generally just don't seek out a career path . . . well, you're sunk. But for those of us who have career aspirations and work towards them while in college its almost a surefire guarantee of future success. Its kind of silly to just say college is a waste since some people graduate with tons of debt and no job, you have to look into the individual to find out the truth behind the story.

For the record I'm a senior at a public college (which you can probably guess from my name) who is majoring in an engineering (won't be more specific).

freebiehunter23

01-21-2009, 08:29 PM

evanft

01-21-2009, 08:42 PM

I think as BS degrees become more common, the major becomes more important in getting jobs. I think it is fair to assume an electrical engineer BS degree holder will have more job opportunities than a BS history degree holder.

This.

I'm a mechanical engineering student with 4 classes left after this semester. I paid for school for the first time last summer, as most of my scholarships don't cover summer classes. I still only had to pay about $300 after all my financial aid came in, though. The last two semesters I've also received so much financial aid that I get thousands in minimally-taxed disbursements from the school, moreso than previous semesters. Of course, I go to Wayne State University. An average semester costs about $5,000, so the grants and scholarships go much farther. I've been able to avoid paying a lot for books by buying cheap international editions on eBay or borrowing/trading from friends. I only live 10-15 minutes away from campus, so I have no room and board costs.

Last year, I worked two separate internships. One was at DTE Energy for about 4 monts at $17.50/hr, while the other was at Visteon for about two months at $21/hour. In addition to giving me enough money so that I don't really have to worry if my financial aid somehow comes up short, I already have experience when I apply for jobs when I graduate.

SlickEnW

01-21-2009, 08:55 PM

For the record I'm a senior at a public college (which you can probably guess from my name) who is majoring in an engineering (won't be more specific).

UW is a wussy college for scrubz.

Which is why I attend :nod: /jk

lobo411

01-21-2009, 08:59 PM

He still got a Law Degree, and is a Lawyer and is able to practice. He was able to take the Bar Exam. You certainly do look down on educational pursuits don't you :rolleyes:

Of course he can get a job with a degree from a joke school like Cal Western. There's plenty of paperwork lawyers who simply cut and paste passages from legal scripts, but they'll never make partner. These guys that go back to college at 40 because they failed at their other career aren't the sharpest tools in the shed... :lmao:

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 09:10 PM

Of course he can get a job with a degree from a joke school like Cal Western. There's plenty of paperwork lawyers who simply cut and paste passages from legal scripts, but they'll never make partner. These guys that go back to college at 40 because they failed at their other career aren't the sharpest tools in the shed... :lmao:

Get a clue - not every person who graduates with a Law Degree wants to make "Partner".
Some go to work for the Government, some open their own practices, some work for small firms (not requiring 80 to 100 or more billing hours per week), etc.

Rebound

01-21-2009, 09:23 PM

Piccaboo

01-21-2009, 09:54 PM

Well done, that's how you're supposed to do it.

When I entered school I had a fair college fund started in the 80's by my grandparents, but it had taken a huge hit in early 2000's and so by the time I got to school I had enough to pay tuition, room, and board for one year. For years two and three I had to take out loans in addition to working part time to pay rent. For year fours and five (I stayed to get a second degree), I was able to pay my tuition and living expenses in full based on the paid internship I had landed and continuing to work part-time during the year.

I don't even know what the interest rate on my loans would have been, but I knew payment didn't start until 6 months after graduation. So I moved back in with my parents, put every cent of my now full time pay into savings, and cut a check for the entire amount with a week to spare before my first payment was due.

I was lucky in that I only accumulated $16,000 in student loans over the course of my degrees, while I've got friends upwards of $70,000 thanks to their private school educations. But it also wasn't easy moving back in with my parents, or putting away those "big' paychecks I was getting without blowing it all on new toys. I know people can get caught by these things through no fault of their own, but I also know a lot of people share the blame for their situation. Poor planning and living beyond your means is a good way to let that debt pile up. I'm still amazed whenever I talk to a friend who is employed full time and living rent-free with his or her parents, and yet they still "never have money". Where does it go?

You did it the right way as well. You didn't take money and blow it, you put it where it was needed to pay off those student loans. Most college students don't realize until it's too late how much they have racked up, and continue to rack up, until it's far too late. They are in too deep. Feels good though to be debt free from that, doesn't it :woot:

jamegumb

01-21-2009, 11:27 PM

I went to college during the Reagan years, after financial aid programs were cut to the bone. I didn't even consider a private school. I thought things were tough financially. I kept my grades very high, which resulted in good grants (enough to pay tuition). I graduated from an excellent public school with $5,000 in student loan debt.

I had no idea how much worse things would be for future students.

Have you noted that the more financial aid packages that exist, the higher tuition goes?

Colleges have figured out a way to soak just about every penny possible from those who go there. (The well-to-do pay progressively more than others.) This practice -- price discrimination -- is illegal in many other economic circumstances. Yet common place in Universities.

Or, check this NYT article from '97 (when tuitions were relatively modest compared to today's levels):

The New Economics of Higher Education
By PETER PASSELL

NEW ORLEANS -- "I loved Tulane," recalled Hillery Martin, a freshman from Los Angeles, about her search for just the right school, "But if I hadn't gotten the scholarship, I probably would have gone to the College of William and Mary."

Those words are music to the ears of Richard Whiteside, Tulane's dean of admissions, whose decision last year to offer smaller merit scholarships to larger numbers of applicants sharply increased both enrollment and tuition income without lowering the academic quality of entering freshmen.

"Just because this isn't a business, doesn't mean you shouldn't use good business principles" to meet the university's goals, he said.

Ms. Martin's choice also pleased Thomas Williams, a consultant to Tulane and president of the Denver-based National Center for Enrollment Management, a for-profit research firm.

The young woman's $10,000 scholarship -- in any other business it would be called a discount -- brought down the price of a year at Tulane to $18,700, roughly that of William and Mary, a competitor in the tier of schools just below the Ivies.

Yet even the discounted tuition she is paying more than covers Tulane's cost of educating an extra freshman. "You need to charge what your market will bear, while keeping a vigilant eye on affordability," said Williams, whose company is one of a burgeoning group advising colleges on how to get more bang from a scholarship buck.

Structuring scholarships in much the way airlines devise supersaver fares may seem out of place in the cloistered world of academia. But it is apparently the way of the future, as parents seek better value from their five- or six-figure investments in four-year colleges, and as all but the most selective colleges are forced to focus on the problem of attracting good students without losing revenue.

There is nothing wrong with this reshuffle of the financial deck, proponents say. On the contrary, they insist, everybody gains. "Efficiency and equity are not necessarily in conflict," said James Scannell of the consulting firm of Scannell & Kurz in Pittsford, N.Y.

Before the 1960s the modest store of scholarship aid available was mostly doled out according to merit. But as the idea that every high school graduate deserved a shot at college became a fixture of American life, the focus shifted to need. Washington got into the act, creating guidelines for aid and supplying a good chunk of the money through grants, loans and work-study programs.

These days the difference between the cost of college and what the typical student can afford to pay certainly has not diminished. Nor has the amount of need-based aid flowing to low- and middle-income students.

But in an era in which private education again seems a luxury, tuition discounting is increasingly seen by college administrators as a competitive tool for wooing high achievers -- or, in many cases, simply filling classrooms with high school graduates who pay more in tuition than they add to operating costs.

Tulane's scholarship policy illustrates the way the rudimentary science of financial-aid leverage -- what economists call price discrimination -- is altering college-enrollment practices. Tulane faces no immediate financial crisis. But by the early 1990s, administrators were uncomfortably aware that rapidly rising tuition costs were outstripping students' ability to pay.

The sticker price of a Tulane education rose 68 percent more than the cost of living from 1984 to 1994, while Americans' average income gained only 25 percent. To lure high-achieving students from low-income and even middle-class families, the university was forced to "spend" a disproportionate amount of its added revenue on scholarships.

Across the decade, its total financial-aid budget, excluding government sources, rose by 400 percent, to $44 million. And despite the increased aid, Tulane's competitive position apparently eroded: Rather than admit less qualified students, the school allowed its undergraduate population to fall from 5,342 in 1991, to 4,830 in 1995.

Williams, the consultant, recommended that the university use data from past years to analyze the admissions "yield" -- the percentage of accepted applicants who actually enrolled -- for each of Tulane's colleges -- liberal arts, architecture and engineering -- and for various categories like the students' academic standing in high school, the size of merit scholarships offered to them and their financial need.

The results from this simple exercise were striking. In 1995, Tulane's entire merit-based scholarship budget was spent on 111 full-tuition scholarships. And the yield from those scholarships was very high.

But relatively few applicants who just missed the cut for these generous merit grants -- and thus received no aid offer at all -- came to Tulane. So last year Dean Whiteside reduced the number of full-tuition scholarships from 111 to 50 and offered $10,000 discounts (a bit less than half of tuition) to 600 of the most qualified applicants from the pool of 6,400 high school seniors admitted.

More than half of the 600 enrolled. The loss of a handful of elite students who turned down the $10,000 offer but might have jumped at $20,000 was more than offset by the enrollment of larger numbers of still excellent freshmen with combined SAT scores above 1,350. And while merit-aid outlays went up, so did total tuition income because the class size swelled by 98 students.

That proved to be a worthwhile trade-off, since Tulane had classrooms and dorms to spare. "All we had to do was add a few class sections," Whiteside said.

Tulane's rejiggering of merit aid offended no one. The only losers, the 61 students who got $10,000 scholarships rather than a free ride, never knew who they were.

But more sophisticated forms of price discrimination are controversial. Many colleges are pumping up aid to students expressing interest in less sought-after departments and decreasing help for those fighting to get into popular ones.

Since Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh has few peers in the sciences, for example, it offers little merit-based aid to budding computer specialists. By contrast, high-achieving applicants in liberal arts are courted with hefty discounts.

Sandra Baum, an economist at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., notes that some colleges are now routinely using merit aid to adjust their male-female mix. Many more are using merit aid to increase the enrollment of blacks and Hispanic people. Vanderbilt University in Nashville, for example, sets aside full-tuition scholarships for the cream of its minority applicants.

As colleges delve more deeply into the art of calculating just the right level of financial aid to woo students, they are discovering that certain variables that have nothing to do with need or academic ability can make a big difference.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, for example, found that less money was needed to entice applicants who had visited the campus. While Johns Hopkins apparently never acted on the evidence, there are plenty of other benchmarks that could prove useful in formulating aid policies that achieve enrollment goals at minimal revenue loss.

An easy one is geography. In-state applicants are widely assumed to be less sensitive to price than out-of-state applicants. That creates an incentive to offer bigger discounts to out-of-staters -- particularly those with access to high quality, low-tuition public schools like the University of Michigan or the University of California at Berkeley.

"Such price discrimination is the next step," Williams suggested, "and it's almost inevitable."

But the aggressive use of price discrimination makes many educators uneasy. Few colleges, for example, have thus far followed Carnegie-Mellon's policy of encouraging applicants to shop for the best price. "If you received a financial-aid package from us that was not competitive with other offers, let us know," urged a letter from the admissions office to some applicants.

And while Dean Whiteside at Tulane plainly glories in the rough and tumble of competing with recruiters at other colleges -- "I want them to say the sucker down in New Orleans ate my lunch," he said enthusiastically -- he still worries that offering different aid packages to students of equal merit and need would undermine the egalitarian spirit of Tulane's campus.

The even thornier issue is whether the sophisticated use of financial leverage will reduce the amount of aid available to needy students.

Certainly the incentive is there. Even students with limited financial resources may be willing to scrimp and borrow to go to the school of their choice if the aid they are offered shrinks. Thus, figuring out students' threshold of pain allows colleges to squeeze a little extra money out of them.

If the incentive is there, so is the moral rationale. "From an economist's point of view," wrote James Day, the president of Hardwick-Day, a Minnesota consulting firm, price discrimination produces the most value for the most people. Thus "a market in which willingness to pay is the chief arbiter in enrollment decisions benefits society as the ultimate source of equity."

The unanswered question is whether the imperative of the market will increase or decrease access to expensive private colleges for low- and middle-income students.

Gordon Winston, an economist at Williams College in Williamstown., Mass., is pessimistic. While merit-aid programs at Tulane and many other schools appear for now to have created win-win opportunities, he argues that grinding competition for high-achieving students from affluent families will eventually come at the expense of the needy ones.

"The more of our general subsidy that is targeted to high-income students," he said, "the less there will be for the needy kids."

Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/eep/news/college.html

BTW, I think James Day (the consulting guy at the bottom) is completely wrong, economics-wise. Price discrimination produces the most value for the seller -- since colleges basically accept the same number of people every year regardless all charging more does is reduces the value of the school to students.

gibbersome

01-21-2009, 11:31 PM

Yes, if you're smart and hardworking, you will most likely make lots of money without a degree, but college also opens many doors for the rest of us...especially if you attend a top tier school.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc grads have it a little easier. Many of these schools have instituted a "no loan" policy.

With Princeton soon to enter their rear-view mirrors, members of this year's senior class are looking forward to pursuing their passions after graduation without having to worry about paying off huge student loans.

This class of 2005 was the first to enter the University under the groundbreaking "no loan" financial aid program in 2001. About 51 percent of seniors, or 600 students, have received aid at some point during their four years at Princeton. Graduating seniors are now able to enter the workforce, pursue further studies, seek teaching positions or take nonprofit jobs, among other endeavors, without the stress of major loan obligations on the horizon.

In a recent e-mail survey conducted by the Office of Financial Aid of seniors on financial aid, roughly two-thirds of the 100 respondents said the benefits of graduating with little or no debt have had a significant impact on their postgraduate plans. Seniors indicated plans to find full-time employment, continue their education at graduate or professional schools and pursue nonprofit work and service opportunities through organizations such as Teach for America, Princeton in Africa and Princeton Project 55.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/69/41A99/index.xml?section=newsreleases

derango1

01-22-2009, 12:00 AM

gibbersome

01-22-2009, 01:55 AM

Must be nice to have a war chest. Wish that was reality for all schools besides Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. I'm forced to bury myself for school around here and my school is actually cheaper than public school. Sadly, I've hit the ceiling of what I can do without a college degree.

Well there is something corrupt and sinister about the Ivy League model of university development. Greed overrides the best interests of students. Charitable donations are seen as the lifeblood of a university. With foreign/rich students willing to pay the high tuition, can we really say that admission is based purely on merit? Degrees are a dime a dozen, and debt in the tens of thousands; we are in danger of marginalizing higher education. My university's current president was hired mostly because he has a good record of raising money.

mohater

01-22-2009, 04:40 AM

Trade schools need to grow back to what they were, and still are in Europe.

RHCCapri

01-22-2009, 04:42 AM

I miss the 80's. The whole shebang was only about $7,500 - $8,000 per year at State University:

Tuition $1650/year
Books $450
Dorms 15 meal plan $4500
Beer $500
Used bike as the old ones got ripped off once a year $50
Movies, dances, etc $350

Work/study at $3.85 per hour. Total debt out of college was about $10,000 at 5% and paid off in five years.

Professors promised that an easy $10 an hour job was waiting after graduation.

In reality my starting wage was $7 per hour, $7.25 the year after.

When the job market improved I finally was able to get a decent job that required a 4 year degree, so at least that piece of paper got my foot in the door.

ASG

01-22-2009, 05:21 AM

International Academy of Design & Technology in Orlando, Fla, my g/f son wanted to go to this place but wasn't accepted for the same thing as the young lady in that article - so he enrolled in Drexel instead at $40k a year :eek: Guess who is co-signing the student loans - his MOM - a single parent and the Dad isn't providing crappola. I said bad, bad move lady friend - you are gonna so sink when he finishes his schooling and he finds out unless he has already landed a job while on co-op - that he needs experience to get a good paying job. YOU will be liable for those loans as a co-signer when he can't pay up. There was no talking her out of it - he was a straight A student - he "deserved" the education :rolleyes:

At least he's going to a school where he's getting some experience already with the co-op.

shhaggy

01-22-2009, 06:19 AM

Somebody at my college committed suicide, and then his roommate got straight As. True story.

buyerandseller

01-22-2009, 06:30 AM

This is why my kids are going to CUNY. Brooklyn College, Baruch College, Queens College and City College offer a first rate education at a fraction of the cost (around $2,100 a semester). If they really wanna get away, then they can goto SUNY Binghamton, another first rate college, which will only cost about $9K a semester.

Somebody at my college committed suicide, and then his roommate got straight As. True story.

NYU or Columbia? I think that's the policy at both schools. I remember a few years back when NYU had a pretty bad year with suicides and atempted suicides

thewrongstuff

01-22-2009, 06:46 AM

What a load of crap. Talk about feelings of "entitlement." First, HE CHOSE to major in History, an almost useless major from the get go-- then compounded that by CHOOSING to go into massive debt to go to law school. Then he cries about the stress that his own choices brought into his life. Yes-- college is not cheap these days and no guarantee of success in life comes with that diploma. It never has.

shhaggy

01-22-2009, 06:51 AM

This is why my kids are going to CUNY. Brooklyn College, Baruch College, Queens College and City College offer a first rate education at a fraction of the cost (around $2,100 a semester). If they really wanna get away, then they can goto SUNY Binghamton, another first rate college, which will only cost about $9K a semester.

NYU or Columbia? I think that's the policy at both schools. I remember a few years back when NYU had a pretty bad year with suicides and atempted suicides

lol, it's not the policy at those or any other school.

buyerandseller

01-22-2009, 06:53 AM

lol, it's not the policy at those or any other school.

u sure? I coulda sworn hearing about how the roommate of someone who died at Columbia got an A for the semester.

superslickdls

01-22-2009, 06:57 AM

The Great College Hoax
Kathy Kristof 02.02.09, 12:00 AM ET (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060_print.html)

Kellum's law school sweetheart, Jennifer Coultas, did much the same. By the time they graduated in 1995, the couple was $194,000 in debt. They eventually married and each landed a six-figure job. Yet even with Kellum moonlighting, they had to scrounge to come up with $145,000 in loan payments. With interest accruing at up to 12% a year, that whittled away only $21,000 in principal. Their remaining bill: $173,000 and counting.

They make at LEAST $200k/year ($100k/year each)- btw, which is something like in the top 5% to 10% of average earnings in the US in 1995 (the year the article cites). IMO, proof that it is worth it to go to college. This is just poor money management.

$200k in debt. That is $100k debt per person. With 12% interest?! My god, refinance that to a decent interest rate. Even with a 12% interest rate, their monthly loan repayments under a 10 year plan is $1,450 per person. Take home after taxes is $5,600 per month per person (assuming a $100k salary since it says they are making six figures each).

So lets see, combined they are bringing home $11,000 per month after taxes and student loan repayments are about $3000, leaving $8,000 per month spending money... Poor money management.

I've known people with $100-$150k/year that are worse off than people making $50k/year, just because people think they can live the "bling bling" lifestyle they see on MTV. They want to buy a yacht, a private jet and spend $15k on a vacation. That is spending well beyond their means. A $100k/year salary is enough for one person to live comfortably but not luxuriously.

shhaggy

01-22-2009, 07:05 AM

u sure? I coulda sworn hearing about how the roommate of someone who died at Columbia got an A for the semester.

No reputable school awards grades that way, think about it for a minute. You think you'd really pass Organic Chem and earn your BS just because your roommate jumped in front of a train? Come on now.

Piccaboo

01-22-2009, 07:08 AM

At least he's going to a school where he's getting some experience already with the co-op.

Yes, I agree - better some experience through co-op, then no experience at all. I just find the tuition at $40k a year myself, ridiculous to become a "Web Designer". I feel one would have been able to get the same degree for this at a less costly College, and not put the single Mom on the hook for the debt if the plans don't work out.

buyerandseller

01-22-2009, 07:13 AM

No reputable school awards grades that way, think about it for a minute. You think you'd really pass Organic Chem and earn your BS just because your roommate jumped in front of a train? Come on now.

didn't you just say that someone at your school got straight As? or did you mean they earned it?

u're right about the policy, I just looked it up and it's one of those urban legends. Funny thing is, I coulda sworn I had heard it on TV or read it in the paper.

shhaggy

01-22-2009, 07:15 AM

didn't you just say that someone at your school got straight As? or did you mean they earned it?

u're right about the policy, I just looked it up and it's one of those urban legends. Funny thing is, I coulda sworn I had heard it on TV or read it in the paper.

....it was a joke

buyerandseller

01-22-2009, 07:16 AM

....it was a joke

:doh:

rrc06

01-22-2009, 07:43 AM

bikes4u

01-22-2009, 07:51 AM

Some don't have any problems borrowing school $ nowadays. I know some full time students (couple) that borrow big $. They go on vacations with the $ (Hawaii, Bahamas, Disney) and have even borrowed school $ to run a Quixtar pyramid scheme for a while. They must be tens of thousands of $ in debt. No problem, they just keep pushing back graduation and borrowing more $. What gives?

when i went to college--no way in hell I was goin on vacations to Hawaii. Somethings not right with the school fundings program.

IlluminatusCU

01-22-2009, 09:16 AM

Get a clue - not every person who graduates with a Law Degree wants to make "Partner".
Some go to work for the Government, some open their own practices, some work for small firms (not requiring 80 to 100 or more billing hours per week), etc.

This is true, and many of these lawyers are not pulling down 6 figures. If the two lawyers in the OP weren't on the big firm track, I can see how they might fall behind on their debt. Especially if they tried to show flash in order to look successful to attract clients.

gibbersome

01-22-2009, 09:43 AM

I think a bonafide in-state public Ivy (U Mich, UNC, U Wisc, UVa, UF, UAB, UC-whatever, UWash etc.) is the way to go unless you get into a classic Ivy (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). Everything else is a waste of money IMO

It's also a regional thing as well UChicago and Northwestern are big names in the Midwest. The classic Ivies dominate the position on top of the rankings because they encourage an atmosphere of pride and entitlement. I just wish we had more politicians and CEOs that didn't have the Ive League stamp.

rrc06

01-22-2009, 09:56 AM

It's also a regional thing as well UChicago and Northwestern are big names in the Midwest. The classic Ivies dominate the position on top of the rankings because they encourage an atmosphere of pride and entitlement. I just wish we had more politicians and CEOs that didn't have the Ive League stamp.

Is UChicago private? IIRC it is.

Dr. J

01-22-2009, 09:58 AM

Several items:

- The availability of loans has made college costs go sky-high. Think about it - if you went to a private univ. and had loans, was there a conscious decision to go into so much debt at the onset, or was it automatic (please note that I am NOT saying students are coerced into taking out loans - it's simply the "normal" thing to to and you don't even think twice about signing the papers)? When the customer has no concern for the cost of what they are purchasing (e.g. a student purchasing an education), there is little reason to participate on a price point and therefore tuition skyrockets. This is similar to what's happened with insurance and the cost of healthcare. You all see this if you tour colleges - how many colleges/Univ will tout how their faculty has X# Ph.D's or is prevalent in the literature? More likely you'll hear about their student union with all sorts of food, or their new multi-million $ gym with a great pool, or their new dorms with all sorts of nifty features.

- I've always wondered how people accumulate SO much debt - $200k for one person? Granted, if the tuition was $40k and you had $10k for living expenses you could do that in 4 years. My wife went back to school (she's a teacher with a BS and MA and went back to get a cert to be a principle, etc) and since I was a student at the time she took out loans. The school - a public CT Univ - was about $4k/semester for 2 classes ala-carte - yet we were offered nearly $20k/SEMESTER in FEDERAL loans! It was up to us to choose how much to accept. I actually called the school and asked what the catch was and asked "So I could go buy a car with the extra $$?" to which they replied "... well.... you'd have to pay it back" Well DUH! I guess it's very common for kids to take out loans in excess of tuition and live on the rest.... a very bad idea.

- I'm a proponent of letting a kid pay their way through college. Too often nowadays, college is the expected continuation of HS, and not all kids are ready/can handle college. So, classes are failed and they spend their time partying. If you knew that every class you took cost you, PERSONALLY, $2k (or whatever), you'd spend alot more time studying and less time partying. If, as a parent, you'd want to help your children, then fine - let them accumulate the debt then suprise them at graduation with a check.

- College is not for everyone, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with saying that. My father was an electrician - my FIL is an electrician, and even though I chose the college route (I have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Yale), I probably use the skills I learned from my father more on a daily basis than my "formal" education. After all, does everyone know how much it costs to hire an electrician/plumber/carpenter/HVAC per hour??? ALOT more than I make! Sure trade work might be harder and more demanding physically, but please do not just go to college, get some nonsense degree, and be back in the same place you started, but 4 or 5 years older and deeper in debt.

Doctor_Wu

01-22-2009, 12:41 PM

I do agree that the lawyers in the OP could probably have 'worked it out' if they'd planned better. Though it does say that the husband was 'moonlighting' somewhere. Add to that the fact that they live in California where the cost of living and housing is pretty high. And the fact that they were lawyers and so they probably "needed" that BMW, for example.

However, I also have seen many many examples of regular folk living within their means but still with a mountain of school debt. There's also the small matter of people 18-24 not understanding the full ramifications of financing their education.... they don't know how much of a bite out of their income it's going to take, nor are they aware of the length of time that payment is going to be there.

Someone was critical of people choosing a history degree. This is really a point of contradiction that we've not resolved between the university and society. On the one hand you've got a job market that requires a degree to even get an interview... on the other hand you've got this idea that you should study something you are at least interested in. And the university usually has a list of jobs you can get with a history degree, or other liberal arts degree... and they are usually pretty broad.

I think (and I hope it's not just good old days syndrome) there was a time when a liberal arts degree was a fine degree that would get you a decent job. The whole idea of a 'liberal education' is lost now anyway, and 99% of schools do not provide a liberal education. Beyond that there are now millions of liberal arts majors... and it's one of those things where you tend to get lost in the shuffle. It seems that you really have to define yourself by your work and degree. Employers seem to have a lack of imagination when it comes to a resume and degree. If your degree and experience are not within some narrow confines of what they think would be a good fit, you don't get an interview.

Hawk2007

01-22-2009, 12:47 PM

Get a clue - not every person who graduates with a Law Degree wants to make "Partner".
Some go to work for the Government, some open their own practices, some work for small firms (not requiring 80 to 100 or more billing hours per week), etc.

Or, some just do it because they can (Caroline Kennedy).

I was just thinking about that the other day without this thread.

Count_Chocula

01-22-2009, 12:54 PM

Hawk2007

01-22-2009, 12:59 PM

lobo411

01-22-2009, 01:10 PM

That's a great point considering the lenders know if you're going to a good school, you're more than likely not a deadbeat and will repay the loan.

Student loans are the best racket in town. About the only thing they can't do to force you to repay is take your thumbs.

Even if you're a deadbeat...student loans cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. Isn't that a nice racket? Charge 8-12% interest on money the Feds loan you at 0.25% with guaranteed return. IMO, if all the risk is taken out of the investment, then the reward should be taken out as well. I'd put an interest rate cap of the Fed Funds Rate + 1% on every student loan to reflect the fact that these loans are essentially risk-free to the lender.

124nic8

01-22-2009, 01:20 PM

RHCCapri

01-22-2009, 01:34 PM

Somebody at my college committed suicide, and then his roommate got straight As. True story.

That was a movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123034/

Doctor_Wu

01-22-2009, 02:21 PM

Another element where you get screwed on the back end of this deal is the student loan interest deduction. Our leaders have seen fit to cap the amount of the deduction at $2500 a year. That's a joke.

If it was uncapped more people would itemize and go over the standard deduction... thus reducing the federal take. The fact that most people probably don't itemize may contribute to people not realizing that they are getting hosed in this arena.

dsh101

01-22-2009, 02:21 PM

I think (and I hope it's not just good old days syndrome) there was a time when a liberal arts degree was a fine degree that would get you a decent job.... [Now] Employers seem to have a lack of imagination when it comes to a resume and degree. If your degree and experience are not within some narrow confines of what they think would be a good fit, you don't get an interview.

This is a good point. My father got a history degree way back when. He then went on to qualify and join the Department of Defense Technical Intern program (I think the requirement to get in was that you could touch-type 40 wpm... pretty rigorous), and wound up with a life-long, 30+ year career as a IT specialist / Network administrator for various agencies within the DoD.
He never went back to school for an IT degree or any kind of technical education at all. Thirty years after finishing college, he was one of the most sought-after IT guys in the Pentagon with nothing but a History degree from Western Kentucky University.

I can say with a depressing amount of certainty that, thirty years from now, no one will have a similar story to tell, because you'd never get so much as your big toe through the door of an IT position without at least an associates degree in a "related field". Someone with just a history degree applying for an IT job is going to get laughed out of the building.

124nic8

01-22-2009, 02:36 PM

This is a good point. My father got a history degree way back when. He then went on to qualify and join the Department of Defense Technical Intern program (I think the requirement to get in was that you could touch-type 40 wpm... pretty rigorous), and wound up with a life-long, 30+ year career as a IT specialist / Network administrator for various agencies within the DoD.
He never went back to school for an IT degree or any kind of technical education at all. Thirty years after finishing college, he was one of the most sought-after IT guys in the Pentagon with nothing but a History degree from Western Kentucky University.

I can say with a depressing amount of certainty that, thirty years from now, no one will have a similar story to tell, because you'd never get so much as your big toe through the door of an IT position without at least an associates degree in a "related field". Someone with just a history degree applying for an IT job is going to get laughed out of the building.

It's just competition. My father was an Engineer with only a GED.

Today, there are too many people with CS degrees to hire history majors for IT jobs.

OTOH, I've heard of high schoolers being hired as game programmers. Supply and demand.

dsh101

01-22-2009, 07:20 PM

Today, there are too many people with CS degrees to hire history majors for IT jobs.
Indeed, that's the issue. They are giving out CS degrees like candy, and as a result those people who could very well be better workers don't have a hope in hell of being considered. And because of that, more people have to get their CS degree to have a chance, and so if you want a leg up you need to have a masters, and then everyone gets their masters, and so you'll have to get your PhD, and then...

The point is 30 years ago a college degree in anything meant you were a good worker and were most likely capable of doing any job put in front of you, whether it was in your "field" or not. They were far less expensive then, and orders of magnitude more valuable. Now, half of the college degrees earned are barely worth the paper they're printed on, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Do we see the issue here?

SlickEnW

01-22-2009, 09:03 PM

Man WTF Where are you guys getting these federal loans from LoL. I cannot even get fed loans to cover three semesters of in state tuition.

justsaver

01-22-2009, 09:04 PM

Wow great read. I'm wondering what happened to the couple that got a divorce though. You would think making a combined 200k+, they could knock out that debt pretty quick.

Looks like more of living beyond their means.

trancepire

01-22-2009, 10:24 PM

Indeed, that's the issue. They are giving out CS degrees like candy, and as a result those people who could very well be better workers don't have a hope in hell of being considered. And because of that, more people have to get their CS degree to have a chance, and so if you want a leg up you need to have a masters, and then everyone gets their masters, and so you'll have to get your PhD, and then...

The point is 30 years ago a college degree in anything meant you were a good worker and were most likely capable of doing any job put in front of you, whether it was in your "field" or not. They were far less expensive then, and orders of magnitude more valuable. Now, half of the college degrees earned are barely worth the paper they're printed on, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Do we see the issue here?
It seems part (I say 'part' because it is not the crux of your post) of what you're playing at is that there has been a lowering of standards in regards to college coursework. I must concur. I have a BS in IT and it was a farking breeze. The degrees I have certainly have made a difference in my career but they were too damned easy to obtain. I have been doing IT work for years and just blew through all the courses, even the unfamiliar ones. That's not cool. I think I'm a pretty smart guy...but I'm no genius - there should have been some challenge in achieving those degrees (the certs, on the other hand, took some studying). Lucky (for my employers) I have a genuine passion for the trade and keep my skills current, cogent, and sharp. Many around me do not, and it shows in their work. I shouldn't have to teach those around or above me simple things I learned years ago. :shake:

It seems that graduating college (in many cases) is now more a proof that you're willing/able to pay for a degree and have the stamina to keep with it rather than a proof that you are talented or proficient in a given subject.

dsh101

01-23-2009, 06:41 AM

Yes. College courses need to be a lot more challenging if we're going to stop their value in the workplace from continuing to plummet. Unfortunately, this is going to mean a lot of colleges telling students "Yes, you failed, that's tough" and denying admission altogether... something they're probably not going to be willing to do in the face of losing profits and funding.

All through high school I kept hearing "You're not going to be able to get away with this in college!" and "You're in for a surprise!"
You want to know the truth? College was no easier or more difficult than high school. The material was obviously more advanced and more focused on my field, but I had to put in no more effort than I had been, and I was studying in a pretty "difficult" field.

I dunno, maybe it seems easier in retrospect than it really was. I'll admit that's a possibility. But it doesn't feel that way.

ASG

01-23-2009, 07:10 AM

rrc06

07-12-2009, 07:22 AM

The statistics that colleges hate to share (http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/10/news/companies/new_gm_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2009071015)

When you start searching for that perfect college for your child, you might think there�s plenty of information to help you with your decision. Just for starters, every college has a website that will give you all the essentials.

Take Stephens College, a private, four-year women�s school in Columbia, Missouri. A quick tour of its website will tell you that the college offers more than 50 major and minors, everything from English to event planning to equestrian science. Class sizes average just 13 students. Annual costs total $32,250, but nearly all students get some kind of financial aid. And the campus looks nice.

But what you won�t see without diligent searching is that half of Stephens students fail to graduate, even after six years. Not to pick on Stephens, which does mention that statistic deep in its website. Point is, little of the data that colleges provide really tell you much about the value of your investment: the quality of the education, the experience of the students, or how the graduates fare later in life. Instead parents have long accepted the value of the diploma on faith. And many assume that a college that charges $50,000 a year will give their child a better education than one that charges $25,000.college_degree_diploma2.03

That may be about to change. As tapped-out families realize they can no longer borrow more and more for expensive colleges, they are increasingly focusing on lower-priced schools. As two college officials recently warned, higher education may be the next bubble to burst. Many experts are even questioning the value of a college degree in an economy where B.A.s are competing, often unsuccessfully, with high school graduates and those with vocational training.

All of which may give momentum to long-standing efforts to improve higher education accountability, which is something that colleges have successfully resisted for years. (Ironically, these same schools have demanded increasing amounts of information about applicants and their parents� ability to pay.) As Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Trust, noted in a recent interview, �Families need more disclosure about value of the education their money is buying, and the federal government should encourage colleges to make this information transparent.�

Truth is, many colleges do a poor job at graduating well-educated students. A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute found that on average four-year colleges graduate fewer than 60% of their students with six years. And there were wide differences among all categories of schools; even for the most competitive colleges, average graduation rates differed by 13 percentage points. (To find out the graduation rates for many four year colleges, go to collegeresults.org.) Other studies have found that good students who attended less prestigious colleges ended up earning the same as those who went to brand-name schools.

It wouldn�t be that hard to provide data about educational quality, since schools compile most of it anyway. They just keep it private, which is curious considering that most colleges are public institutions or or least partially funded by taxpayers. The National Survey of Student Engagement gathers loads of data on how they spend their time in school and how they feel about their education.The College Learning Assessment tests students� ability to reason analytically and solve problems during their academic career. As for student outcomes after graduation, well, most colleges keep tabs on their alumni for fundraising purposes. So it�s time that they shared some of that information with tuition-paying families. And who knows? A little more disclosure might improve the quality of higher education and even slow the rate of tuition hikes.

luvtoargue

07-12-2009, 08:59 AM

The statistics that colleges hate to share (http://slickdeals.net/?sdtid=1144461&u2=http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/10/news/companies/new_gm_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2009071015) [cnn.com (http://slickdeals.net/?sdtid=1144461&u2=http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/10/news/companies/new_gm_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2009071015)]

"Education" has become a sham...at every level...

redpoint5

07-12-2009, 03:05 PM

Educational institutions certainly are shady, but I don't place all of the blame for students failing to overcome debt and earn higher wages on the schools. The obligation of the school is to impart knowledge, not wisdom.

Everyone knows they should read the fine print on any contract. They also know to thoroughly research before making major financial decisions, and this includes the decision to go to school. Responsibility falls back on the individual as it always has.

Perhaps educational priorities need to be changed starting in high school. It should not be possible to graduate without showing an elementary knowledge of how compounded interest can work for and against an individual. Furthermore, at least 1 economics class should be a requirement to earn any degree. Not everyone can apply music history or pottery in daily living, but everyone that has an opinion about how money should be spent is an economist whether they like it or not. However, this requirement would undermine the covert socialist agenda that many schools are pushing, so I don't see this being a likely requirement any time soon.

Higher education isn't for everyone, and it shouldn't be marketed as such. Doing so does have the effect of preying on the lower class who lack basic skills required to make sound financial decisions.

Why does school cost so much anyways? Many lectures are taught without significant change through the years and there is minimal interaction with the students. Most lectures should be recorded and webcast for a fraction of the cost of actually having to hire a professor to repeat the same stuff over and over again. The students should then have access to tutors that are able to answer questions that arise during these prerecorded lectures.

An elementary math book shouldn't cost $150 and change every year. Elementary mathematics doesn't change which means the text doesn't have to change. I have a hunch publishers bribe school administrators to adopt outrageously costly text books. There is a virtually unchallenged assumption that you can't put a price on "quality" education.

we were offered nearly $20k/SEMESTER in FEDERAL loans! It was up to us to choose how much to accept.I guess it's very common for kids to take out loans in excess of tuition and live on the rest.... a very bad idea.

If, as a parent, you'd want to help your children, then fine - let them accumulate the debt then surprise them at graduation with a check.

Taking out maximum amounts for federal loans is a fantastic idea. Park that interest free money in a rewards checking account, pay off the loan 6 months after you are out of school, and pocket all of the interest you earned on the government subsidized loan.

Brilliant idea for parents wanting to pay for their child's education.

Doctor_Wu

07-16-2009, 03:41 PM

Educational institutions certainly are shady, but I don't place all of the blame for students failing to overcome debt and earn higher wages on the schools. The obligation of the school is to impart knowledge, not wisdom.

Oooh.... I'm not comfortable with how you put that last portion. I would at least say it is the obligation of the university to expose the student to wisdom.... if not to impart it. That was the original premise of higher education in the first place. Functional knowledge was the preserve of primary and secondary education.

redpoint5

07-16-2009, 04:09 PM

Oooh.... I'm not comfortable with how you put that last portion. I would at least say it is the obligation of the university to expose the student to wisdom.... if not to impart it. That was the original premise of higher education in the first place. Functional knowledge was the preserve of primary and secondary education.

I agree with you.

However, basic economics should be taught before the completion of high school. Students should have to prove a basic understanding of economics in the form of a standardized test to even graduate, because almost every decision from then on out will be an economic one.

Even understanding economics is not a guarantee that someone will have the ability to make wise financial decisions. It seems knowledge is the cornerstone to wisdom, but wisdom is difficult to teach. This idea is a bit like Plato's Meno.

luvtoargue

07-16-2009, 04:11 PM

freebiehunter23

07-16-2009, 04:14 PM

I agree with you.

However, basic economics should be taught before the completion of high school. Students should have to prove a basic understanding of economics in the form of a standardized test to even graduate, because almost every decision from then on out will be an economic one.

Even understanding economics is not a guarantee that someone will have the ability to make wise financial decisions. It seems knowledge is the cornerstone to wisdom, but wisdom is difficult to teach. This idea is a bit like Plato's Meno.

I think a personal finance course would be more useful than an economics course.

smegalicious

07-16-2009, 04:18 PM

Taking out maximum amounts for federal loans is a fantastic idea. Park that interest free money in a rewards checking account, pay off the loan 6 months after you are out of school, and pocket all of the interest you earned on the government subsidized loan.

Brilliant idea for parents wanting to pay for their child's education.
Not all federal student loans are subsidized. Whether an applicant receives the subsidized or unsubsidized depends primarily on income level (of the student and the parents, if applicable).

luvtoargue

07-16-2009, 04:22 PM

The world is a lot more complicated than it was back then... There are more "things" to learn. Can we teach the "basics" and still the necessities? Maybe we do have to leave out "the classics" of education to fit in the essentials for living in modern society. Maybe if we did that, we'd be able to educate the inner city kids. Call it "essential education"...nothing but "real world" learning...no theory except what's necessary. The Cliff Notes of education. Practical application...nothing else.

rrc06

10-20-2009, 07:11 PM

The hoax is getting pricier...

College: More expensive than ever (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/19/pf/college_costs/index.htm?postversion=2009102013)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/10/19/pf/college_costs/chart_college_tuition_increases.03.gif

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/10/19/pf/college_costs/chart_college_costs2.ju.jpg

Tuition is climbing at a faster clip than the availability of financial aid, putting a degree further out of reach for many Americans.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- College costs are higher than ever, according to a new report, putting a degree even further out of reach for many Americans.

Tuition and fees at private 4-year schools rose 4.4% in the current school year to $26,273, according to a survey released by the College Board Tuesday.

Charges at public 4-year universities spiked over 6% for both in-state and out-of state students, to $7,020 and $18,548, respectively.

"We're in a very strong sellers market for higher education," said Pat Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, who noted that the high school graduating class of 2009 was the largest in history.

"Colleges and universities are capitalizing on that more than any other institution in the economy. If you walk around a shopping mall, nobody else is raising prices at the same rate."

Tuition prices are going up at private schools at least in part because those schools have seen their endowments dwindle. Public schools are suffering from a dip in state funding, which declined 5.7% per student this year. (College Cost Finder: Get the latest tuition.)

Less grant money. At the same time, the availability of financial aid isn't keeping up with these climbing costs. Grant funding grew only 4.7% in the 2008-2009 academic year, the most recent for which data is available, which means that undergraduates' out-of-pocket costs are higher than ever.

That, combined with higher unemployment and stagnant household incomes, is making it harder than ever to finance a degree.

The good news, if it can be called that, is that about two thirds of full time students receive financial aid that doesn't need to be repaid. After taking grants into consideration, coupled with federal tax benefits, the net cost of college is much lower than the sticker price. On average, students at private schools are paying $11,900, while those attending public schools are spending about $1,600 out of pocket each year.

That still leaves a third of students paying full freight, and every undergrad is still contending with room and board costs that are also climbing, up 5.4% at public schools at 4.2% at private schools this year.

"Tuition is only one part of the picture," said Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst at Collage Board. "Even though the net tuition might not be rising for students who get grants, the aid is not enough to cover living costs."

More borrowing. To help bridge the gap between what college costs and what families can afford, student loans are also up. Total borrowing increased 5% between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, the most recent for which data is available.

If these trends continue, experts say that it will become even harder to get a college degree.

"If we don't find a way to constrain costs and invest in financial aid at the same time, we won't have any gain in increasing the accessibility or affordability of higher education," said Pat Callan from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Callan and his colleagues say that state governors and legislators have to put pressure on public colleges and universities to limit tuition hikes, while trustees must do the same at private schools.

Simultaneously, Callan adds, schools need to invest more financial aid in students who really need it. For instance, at public schools during the 2007-2008 year, two-thirds of grant money went to students without regard to financial circumstances. Students from the lowest income families got an average of just $570 in non need-based grants, while students from upper-middle income families received $730.

But the College Board's Sandy Baum is optimistic that this is one challenge that the education community can address.

"I think that the silver lining to the current problem is that we'll waste less money on kids who don't need it," she said, "and focus on kids who need the funds."

Hawk2007

10-20-2009, 07:40 PM

The hoax is getting pricier...

College: More expensive than ever (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/19/pf/college_costs/index.htm?postversion=2009102013)

Looks like there needs to be a public option and non-profit universities.

Wait a minute...

ASG

10-20-2009, 08:50 PM

Looks like there needs to be a public option and non-profit universities.

Wait a minute...
I'm sure college would be much cheaper if it were only private universities.

Wait a minute...

Foreveryours

10-20-2009, 08:52 PM

I'm sure college would be much cheaper if it were only private universities.

Wait a minute...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

3rdGradeTeacher

10-20-2009, 08:57 PM

A relative of mine was promised a full scholarship at a private school, then at the last minute they took it away because the college didnt got the donations they were expecting.

rrc06

10-21-2009, 04:30 AM

I'm sure college would be much cheaper if it were only private universities.

Wait a minute...

I think the analogy doesn't fit, personally

ASG

10-21-2009, 06:07 AM

I think the analogy doesn't fit, personally
I think it does. Hawk wants to compare college to healthcare. In education we have a public option (state and community colleges), some of which are very competitive with their private counterparts. So now more people can afford going to college and yet the existance of it hasn't destroyed the ability of private education to exist. Although we cannot say for sure either way, it is quite possible that the public option has kept private university tuition from increasing to even more insane heights.

Also, unlike college, everybody needs healthcare.

rrc06

10-21-2009, 06:21 AM

moey

10-21-2009, 06:22 AM

moey

10-21-2009, 06:34 AM

I can say with a depressing amount of certainty that, thirty years from now, no one will have a similar story to tell, because you'd never get so much as your big toe through the door of an IT position without at least an associates degree in a "related field". Someone with just a history degree applying for an IT job is going to get laughed out of the building.

I think one of the few disciplines that can be entered into without a degree will always be the Software Industry. Its a industry that many companies have the show me what you have done. This can either be college work, or say hey look at this open source project I created that is used by these 100 companies. You may not be able to get a job running the IT servers at the large healthcare company down the street, they will weed you out. But a large computer company (IBM, Oracle, any startup as well) has no problems hiring you. I just watched a presentation on open source databases and the person giving it worked at Sun no degree no formal training. They were hired in the past year, through the open source market.

ASG

10-21-2009, 07:07 AM

Do public universities stick to a budget, and have to balance it every year? They do, which is why students everywhere are feeling the pain with rising tuition this year.

Does federal spending follow that same restriction? :shake:
Even with "the pain," tuition at a state school for a state resident is still often 1/3 or less than some nearby private counterpart.

Danman114

10-21-2009, 08:45 AM

I think it does. Hawk wants to compare college to healthcare. In education we have a public option (state and community colleges), some of which are very competitive with their private counterparts. So now more people can afford going to college and yet the existance of it hasn't destroyed the ability of private education to exist. Although we cannot say for sure either way, it is quite possible that the public option has kept private university tuition from increasing to even more insane heights.

Also, unlike college, everybody needs healthcare.

I think the comparison of college education to healthcare is invalid, and a continuation of the comparison to include 'public options' is similarly invalid. (And for the record, MIT posts all their classes online for free, so if one is looking for value, self education via the private sector is where it would be!)

Most people look at the expenditures on college as an 'investment', similar to the way people looked at buying houses in the early 2000's.

Essentially, Sallie Mae is to college tuition what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is to housing prices. They government sponsored entity 'enables' people to defer the astronomical costs of tuition over 30 years (or more?) enabling colleges to jack up prices without its students really fealing the immediate effects. Most entrants convince themselves that they will make up the costs once they graduate anyway.

Eventually this bubble will pop.

Krazen1211

10-21-2009, 09:10 AM

redpoint5

10-21-2009, 11:12 AM

I think one of the few disciplines that can be entered into without a degree will always be the Software Industry. Its a industry that many companies have the show me what you have done. This can either be college work, or say hey look at this open source project I created that is used by these 100 companies. You may not be able to get a job running the IT servers at the large healthcare company down the street, they will weed you out. But a large computer company (IBM, Oracle, any startup as well) has no problems hiring you. I just watched a presentation on open source databases and the person giving it worked at Sun no degree no formal training. They were hired in the past year, through the open source market.

I have no degree or certifications, but have worked in IT since age 16. An internship working for the state in high school gave me enough experience to put me ahead of those with only classroom knowledge. I have even had job offers where the minimum requirements were a CS degree and various certifications.

Our network admin has a mechanical engineering degree, and our server/email admin has only a music degree. Other coworkers have CS degrees, but they are no more valuable than those without.

In IT, like all jobs, the most important thing is who you know. After that it is experience and personality. Hiring in other fields should be done this way, where possible. Applicants should be given tests related to the position they wish to fill, just as if they were taking a college exam.

KN6

10-22-2009, 05:02 AM

Dr. J

10-22-2009, 05:22 AM

ASG

10-22-2009, 06:03 AM

Do the healthcare proponents REALLY want to compare it to public universities? Last I knew - public universities do not carry their own weight and are heavily subsidized by the state(s) for ongoing operations as well as major projects (construction).
Last I knew healthcare was heavily subsidized for ongoing operations as well as major projects (construction) as well.

Dr. J

10-22-2009, 06:34 AM

Last I knew healthcare was heavily subsidized for ongoing operations as well as major projects (construction) as well.

Meaning you cannot say "hey look at public universities - they are the pinnacle of government efficiency - cheap tuition and they pay for themselves. Woohoo gov't!". That's rather like touting that the new healthcare system will be great - just look at the USPS for a model!

ASG

10-22-2009, 06:58 AM

Meaning you cannot say "hey look at public universities - they are the pinnacle of government efficiency - cheap tuition and they pay for themselves. Woohoo gov't!". That's rather like touting that the new healthcare system will be great - just look at the USPS for a model!
You're making my case for me. USPS and public colleges are great compared to their private counterparts. They are cheap for the customer (allowing access to some of the public for mail and education that they otherwise could not afford) and provide a competitive service so much that people who can afford the private version sometimes choose the public version because the public version meets their needs. Yet the existance of a public option hasn't removed all private options from existance.

Krazen1211

10-22-2009, 07:06 AM

Do the healthcare proponents REALLY want to compare it to public universities? Last I knew - public universities do not carry their own weight and are heavily subsidized by the state(s) for ongoing operations as well as major projects (construction).

Obama: Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option.

Even by his own words, the comparison to public universities is flawed.

rrc06

10-22-2009, 07:13 AM

Even with "the pain," tuition at a state school for a state resident is still often 1/3 or less than some nearby private counterpart.

Because it is subsidized with public money, obviously.

ASG

10-22-2009, 07:26 AM

Because it is subsidized with public money, obviously.
Because they aren't looking to maximize how much money they can get from tuition. I forget whether it was this thread or a previous one but there was an article I posted a while ago that showed endowments of some private schools are enormous, so much so that if they wanted to they could charge no tuition for I think it was the next decade. Another article I linked to long ago showed one university (I think it was Harvard) lamenting that it wasn't charging as much tuition as one of its competitors. Not because it needed the money but because they felt it showed they weren't as good because they weren't charging as much.

http://archive.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=4452132&postcount=16

Danman114

10-22-2009, 09:17 AM

Because they aren't looking to maximize how much money they can get from tuition.
The problem being pointed out is they aren't covering the costs of an education with the money they get from tuition.

That's a problem because it enables prospective students/parents/onlookers to look at a side by side comparison of two schools, one which is partially funded by tax payers (who knows who much because it's not listed on the tuition bill) and one that is completely private (if it exists any more) and receives zero public funding, and conclude that the private instutition is simply less efficient, as evidenced by a comparitve education but the private school charges more in tuition.

If a public university had to cover its costs via tuition and other revenue streams, you'd see a more accurate comparison between public and private schools.

Edit:

Also, on the article you linked with college tuition prices rising faster than inflation, I'd argue this supports a previous post where I likened college tuition to the housing market. Just like housing prices outpacing inflation due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so to are college prices.

ASG

10-22-2009, 09:56 AM

The problem being pointed out is they aren't covering the costs of an education with the money they get from tuition.

That's a problem because it enables prospective students/parents/onlookers to look at a side by side comparison of two schools, one which is partially funded by tax payers (who knows who much because it's not listed on the tuition bill) and one that is completely private (if it exists any more) and receives zero public funding, and conclude that the private instutition is simply less efficient, as evidenced by a comparitve education but the private school charges more in tuition.

If a public university had to cover its costs via tuition and other revenue streams, you'd see a more accurate comparison between public and private schools.

Edit:

Also, on the article you linked with college tuition prices rising faster than inflation, I'd argue this supports a previous post where I likened college tuition to the housing market. Just like housing prices outpacing inflation due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so to are college prices.
Healthcare is about affordability and accessibility

Danman114

10-22-2009, 10:49 AM

Healthcare is about affordability and accessibility

And affordability is about knowing the cost. Public options, employee sponsored plans, and numerous other government programs hide this.

ASG

10-22-2009, 11:05 AM

And affordability is about knowing the cost. Public options, employee sponsored plans, and numerous other government programs hide this.
Its right there in the budget. Just becuase you're not looking doesn't mean its hidden. You seriously saying any service the government provides hides its cost?

rrc06

10-22-2009, 11:21 AM

Healthcare is about affordability and accessibility

so make the costs transparent, and remove barriers to compete, rather than hoping the government-option does something about it.

Costs of healthcare will never go down so long as no one knows how much anything costs. Medicare has done nothing to slow down healthcare costs, and many insurance companies are a black box where people pay high premiums, fixed co-pays and get services without really knowing the financials of the services themselves at all

Danman114

10-22-2009, 11:33 AM

Its right there in the budget. Just becuase you're not looking doesn't mean its hidden. You seriously saying any service the government provides hides its cost?

I'm saying that the cost is seperated from the service provided. It's hidden at the time of purchase.

If a doctor asks you if you want a test that won't cost you directly any money (and is non-intrusive), but adds to the the total cost of health care in the economy, what incentive do you have to say no if you believe there is even the most remote chance it could come back positive? You'd have next to zero incentive. But, if the doctor had to 'sell you' the test, meaning the cost of it would be paid by you, then you might not get tested for something you know you probably don't have.

Back to talking about college, because a substantial portion of a public schools revenues come from activities totally unrelated to educating students in exchange for money, the actual costs are hidden from the students, parents, and for a large part, society.

Let's face it, everyone knows state schools are 'cheaper' but not everyone knows a school like UMASS accepts $450+ million from the state. This cost is 'hidden', and when you make comparisons between the efficiency of a public school versus a private school, it isn't taken into account very often.

redpoint5

10-22-2009, 11:50 AM

I'm in this boat right now. 24 years old with my own company that's doing great but also going to community college. I'm at the point where I'm asking myself if college is even worth it. Working so much that I have already had to drop 3 classes this year, but the upside is that my work has allowed me to make a huge chunk of money, saved 22k since march of this year. I'll probably have 30-40k saved up by the end of this year, which is crazy for someone of my background/age.

I'm pretty damn sure if I applied that time I spent on school improving my company it would be a better use of my time. On the other hand my family was so happy when I decided to enroll in college that dropping out would probably break their hearts.

All of the reasons you mentioned are strong evidence that your time is better spent focused on your business. Of course, only if your business is legit.

Of course, there will be those on the education bandwagon that will disagree with my opinion that quitting school can be a great option. I'm 2 classes away from my associates, and have very little motivation to complete it. Of course I will, but I highly doubt it will ever translate into higher pay considering my entrepreneurial nature.

ASG

10-22-2009, 12:01 PM

I'm saying that the cost is seperated from the service provided. It's hidden at the time of purchase.

If a doctor asks you if you want a test that won't cost you directly any money (and is non-intrusive), but adds to the the total cost of health care in the economy, what incentive do you have to say no if you believe there is even the most remote chance it could come back positive? You'd have next to zero incentive. But, if the doctor had to 'sell you' the test, meaning the cost of it would be paid by you, then you might not get tested for something you know you probably don't have.

Back to talking about college, because a substantial portion of a public schools revenues come from activities totally unrelated to educating students in exchange for money, the actual costs are hidden from the students, parents, and for a large part, society.

Let's face it, everyone knows state schools are 'cheaper' but not everyone knows a school like UMASS accepts $450+ million from the state. This cost is 'hidden', and when you make comparisons between the efficiency of a public school versus a private school, it isn't taken into account very often.

so make the costs transparent, and remove barriers to compete, rather than hoping the government-option does something about it.

Costs of healthcare will never go down so long as no one knows how much anything costs. Medicare has done nothing to slow down healthcare costs, and many insurance companies are a black box where people pay high premiums, fixed co-pays and get services without really knowing the financials of the services themselves at all
These are seperate questions/issues than Hawk's original comment. As my previous link and other articles indicate, getting money from the state is not why tuition is so high.

Danman114

10-22-2009, 12:08 PM

These are seperate questions/issues than Hawk's original comment. As my previous link and other articles indicate, getting money from the state is not why tuition is so high.

Which links in particular?

I agree that transparency of costs aren't why college tuitions are so high... I blame Sally Mae for that.

rrc06

10-22-2009, 01:02 PM

This just recently came out. The idea of paying 50 grand a year for an undergraduate education boggles my mind as much as those people who spend 30 grand a year so their kids can go to prep high schools. More often then not, Im guess these groups of people overlap quite a bit :lmao:

Colleges with the Highest Total Cost 2009-2010 (http://www.campusgrotto.com/colleges-with-the-highest-total-cost.html)

ASG

10-22-2009, 01:24 PM

Which links in particular?

I agree that transparency of costs aren't why college tuitions are so high... I blame Sally Mae for that.
The parts I bolded in my old post that I linked in post #97.

Doctor_Wu

10-22-2009, 03:34 PM

The reason that tuition is outpacing inflation is many faceted. For one there is the small matter of demand. People are convinced that college is the only way to 'make it' in the US today... hence the 'hoax' that originated this thread. Demand has continued to increase, and there has been a simultaneous lowering of standards to meet that demand. So supply has been expanded to keep up with demand, has this lowered costs? In some ways yes... there are low cost alternatives such as community colleges, and commuter schools. But demand for the big schools and/or schools with a good reputation outpaces supply.

Also... kids have a lot of money to spend on college. People are encouraged to go into debt to finance this purchase, and since they are young and have a poor conception of long term financial thinking... they just fork it over. Well... they sign their name, and get a big payday.

So high demand, along with "free" money has lead to a situation where tuition can outpace inflation by several times. So we have customers who don't feel the true cost of this service... while simultaneously having something like limitless resources to consume.

Health care costs also outpace inflation and it's also a situation where (most) customers don't feel the true cost of the service, as they are insulated from the cost by insurance and the co-payment structure. A 'public option' will not cure this situation b/c it will not alter the relationship between consumer and producer. Insurance, be it public or otherwise will still stand between supply and demand, and therefore continue the perversion of the price function.

Danman114

10-22-2009, 06:51 PM

The parts I bolded in my old post that I linked in post #97.

I agree with those posts, and many are very similar to what I wrote.

That link doesn't really address the perceived differences in value between public and private schools when considering the true costs associated with each though. I thought that was part of what we were discussing?

ASG

10-23-2009, 06:55 AM

I agree with those posts, and many are very similar to what I wrote.

That link doesn't really address the perceived differences in value between public and private schools when considering the true costs associated with each though. I thought that was part of what we were discussing?
I was discussing profit motive, costs to the consumer and access due to those things.

Private schools (or at least some of them such as Harvard) have tons of money in endowments yet don't lower their tuition because, as Wu stated, demand says they don't need to. And, being a private business, they go for the most money possible. So their endowment continues to stockpile while the customer is paying out the nose. The public universities don't have such profit motive so the customer does indeed get real value, not just a perceived one.

rrc06

10-23-2009, 12:08 PM

I was discussing profit motive, costs to the consumer and access due to those things.

Private schools (or at least some of them such as Harvard) have tons of money in endowments yet don't lower their tuition because, as Wu stated, demand says they don't need to. And, being a private business, they go for the most money possible. So their endowment continues to stockpile while the customer is paying out the nose. The public universities don't have such profit motive so the customer does indeed get real value, not just a perceived one.

Are private colleges beholden to a group of shareholders? Are they even for-profit organizations at all?

Maybe they are just trying to build a cushion in the case of lean times, like this one? Public universities probably wish they had that kind of resource.

ASG

10-23-2009, 12:58 PM

Are private colleges beholden to a group of shareholders? Are they even for-profit organizations at all?

Maybe they are just trying to build a cushion in the case of lean times, like this one? Public universities probably wish they had that kind of resource.
Its lean times and they're still not using it. Or, should I say, they're using 5% of it. But yes, public universities I'm sure wish they had $35B just waiting to be spent.

PhoenixFP

10-24-2009, 05:16 AM

So true. I just had a talk with my schools financial aid office. The government expects my parents to contribute a heafty amount, which in actuality is zero dollars and no cents. I get a measily amount for loans that, after ramen, books, tuition, and rent for a studio apartment with 10 other guys, i'm still in the negatives LoL.

I like how they mention the situations with the two law students. How can you contribute such a tiny portion after they both take home six figure salaries? Sounds like they bought a big house to match their degree and a fancy car(s) to toot around in, instead of prioritizing. They don't mention degrees such as comp sci and business. Historians can't really...i mean, honestly I don't know what type of money making ventures a historian can be used for on a wide scale. I can see where they got the sub 900 available jobs figure from, and the amount of individuals graduating...its just out of whack.

But the students also need to prepare and plan (as I was told yesterday). I've switched my major three times because after working in the industry, it wasn't really that exciting. I'm glad I only had to waste a little of my life figuring out that it wasn't for me, all while padding my resume and getting work experience vs those who are a slave to the 4.0 and are too busy to get any experience.

So true. The government, according to my FAFSA thinks my parents- my mom an RN and my dad disabled and unable to work- should be able to contribute almost $1000 a month to my education. They don't have that to spare, by a long shot. But you get a worker's compensation settlement- even a very low one- and the government thinks you have tons of money to spare.

I got a student loan to cover this year's expenses. It's about $8k from the government. My dad was telling me to get a Sallie Mae loan, and was rather dumbfounded why I said no- "it's free money that you can easily pay back later" was his argument. I read about SM a lot. I understood their practices. I'm not going to get a penny from them. Their rates are worse than the credit union I'm a member of (since age 8! :P).

I attend one of the cheapest 4-year universities in the state of Florida, which is cheaper than most states already. I'm not really able to afford it, but I understand what the ramifications are for my actions. If you have half a brain about what you are doing, you will survive just fine. Just live within your means.

rrc06

02-13-2010, 09:16 PM

Even medical school debt can become overwhelming...

The $555,000 Student-Loan Burden (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033063806327030.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_personalfinance)

As Default Rates on Borrowing for Higher Education Rise, Some Borrowers See No Way Out; 'This Is Just Outrageous Now'

When Michelle Bisutti, a 41-year-old family practitioner in Columbus, Ohio, finished medical school in 2003, her student-loan debt amounted to roughly $250,000. Since then, it has ballooned to $555,000.

It is the result of her deferring loan payments while she completed her residency, default charges and relentlessly compounding interest rates. Among the charges: a single $53,870 fee for when her loan was turned over to a collection agency.

"Maybe half of it was my fault because I didn't look at the fine print," Dr. Bisutti says. "But this is just outrageous now."

To be sure, Dr. Bisutti's case is extreme, and lenders say student-loan terms are clear and that they try to work with borrowers who get in trouble.

But as tuitions rise, many people are borrowing heavily to pay their bills. Some no doubt view it as "good debt," because an education can lead to a higher salary. But in practice, student loans are one of the most toxic debts, requiring extreme consumer caution and, as Dr. Bisutti learned, responsibility.

Unlike other kinds of debt, student loans can be particularly hard to wriggle out of. Homeowners who can't make their mortgage payments can hand over the keys to their house to their lender. Credit-card and even gambling debts can be discharged in bankruptcy. But ditching a student loan is virtually impossible, especially once a collection agency gets involved. Although lenders may trim payments, getting fees or principals waived seldom happens.

Yet many former students are trying. There is an estimated $730 billion in outstanding federal and private student-loan debt, says Mark Kantrowitz of FinAid.org, a Web site that tracks financial-aid issues�and only 40% of that debt is actively being repaid. The rest is in default, or in deferment, which means that payments and interest are halted, or in "forbearance," which means payments are halted while interest accrues.

Although Dr. Bisutti's debt load is unusual, her experience having problems repaying isn't. Emmanuel Tellez's mother is a laid-off factory worker, and $120 from her $300 unemployment checks is garnished to pay the federal PLUS student loan she took out for her son.

By the time Mr. Tellez graduated in 2008, he had $50,000 of his own debt in loans issued by SLM Corp., known as Sallie Mae, the largest private student lender. In December, he was laid off from his $29,000-a-year job in Boston and defaulted. Mr. Tellez says that when he signed up, the loan wasn't explained to him well, though he concedes he missed the fine print.

Loan terms, including interest rates, are disclosed "multiple times and in multiple ways," says Martha Holler, a spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, who says the company can't comment on individual accounts. Repayment tools and account information are accessible on Sallie Mae's Web site as well, she says.

Many borrowers say they are experiencing difficulties working out repayment and modification terms on their loans. Ms. Holler says that Sallie Mae works with borrowers individually to revamp loans. Although the U.S. Department of Education has expanded programs like income-based repayment, which effectively caps repayments for some borrowers, others might not qualify.

Heather Ehmke of Oakland, Calif., renegotiated the terms of her subprime mortgage after her home was foreclosed. But even after filing for bankruptcy, she says she couldn't get Sallie Mae, one of her lenders, to adjust the terms on her student loan. After 14 years with patches of deferment and forbearance, the loan has increased from $28,000 to more than $90,000. Her monthly payments jumped from $230 to $816. Last month, her petition for undue hardship on the loans was dismissed.

Sallie Mae supports reforms that would allow student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy for those who have made a good-faith effort to repay them, says Ms. Holler.

Dr. Bisutti says she loves her work, but regrets taking out so many student loans. She admits that she made mistakes in missing payments, deferring her loans and not being completely thorough with some of the paperwork, but was surprised at how quickly the debt spiraled.

She says she knew when she started medical school in 1999 that she would have to borrow heavily. But she reasoned that her future income as a doctor would make paying off the loans easy. While in school, her loans racked up interest with variable rates ranging from 3% to 11%.

She maxed out on federal loans, borrowing $152,000 over four years, and sought private loans from Sallie Mae to help make up the difference. She also took out two loans from Wells Fargo & Co. for $20,000 each. Each had a $2,000 origination fee. The total amount she borrowed at the time: $250,000.

In 2005, the bill for the Wells Fargo loans came due. Representatives from the bank called her father, Michael Bisutti, every day for two months demanding payment. Mr. Bisutti, who had co-signed on the loans, finally decided to cover the $550 monthly payments for a year.

Wells Fargo says it will stop calling consumers if they request it, says senior vice president Glen Herrick, who adds that the bank no longer imposes origination fees on its private loans.

Sallie Mae, meanwhile, called Mr. Bisutti's neighbor. The neighbor told Mr. Bisutti about the call. "Now they know [my dad's] daughter the doctor defaulted on her loans," Dr. Bisutti says.

Ms. Holler, the Sallie Mae spokeswoman, says that the company may contact a neighbor to verify an individual's address. But in those cases, she says, the details of the debt obligation aren't discussed.

Dr. Bisutti declined to authorize Sallie Mae to comment specifically on her case. "The overwhelming majority of medical-school graduates successfully repay their student loans," Ms. Holler says.

After completing her fellowship in 2007, Dr. Bisutti juggled other debts, including her credit-card balance, and was having trouble making her $1,000-a-month student-loan payments. That year, she defaulted on both her federal and private loans. That is when the "collection cost" fee of $53,870 was added on to her private loan.

Meanwhile, the variable interest rates continue to compound on her balance and fees. She recently applied for income-based repayment, but she still isn't sure if she will qualify. She makes $550-a-month payments to Wells Fargo for the two loans she hasn't defaulted on. By the time she is done, she will have paid the bank $128,000�over three times the $36,000 she received.

She recently entered a rehabilitation agreement on her defaulted federal loans, which now carry an additional $31,942 collection cost. She makes monthly payments on those loans�now $209,399�for $990 a month, with only $100 of it going toward her original balance. The entire balance of her federal loans will be paid off in 351 months. Dr. Bisutti will be 70 years old.

The debt load keeps her up at night. Her damaged credit has prevented her from buying a home or a new car. She says she and her boyfriend of three years have put off marriage and having children because of the debt.

Dr. Bisutti told her 17-year-old niece the story of her debt as a cautionary tale "so the next generation of kids who want to get a higher education knows what they're getting into," she says. "I will likely have to deal with this debt for the rest of my life."

SigX

02-14-2010, 04:25 AM

Even medical school debt can become overwhelming...

The $555,000 Student-Loan Burden (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033063806327030.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_personalfinance)

dont tell anyone that, they want to live in fairly land where doctors are uber rich fat cats sucking the life blood out of patients.

dont forget that she gets no tax breaks for her interest on these loans because she makes more than 75k per yr.

mohater

02-14-2010, 04:54 AM

dont tell anyone that, they want to live in fairly land where doctors are uber rich fat cats sucking the life blood out of patients.

dont forget that she gets no tax breaks for her interest on these loans because she makes more than 75k per yr.

She's also not very bright

The debt load keeps her up at night. Her damaged credit has prevented her from buying a home or a new car. She says she and her boyfriend of three years have put off marriage and having children because of the debt.

Dr. Bisutti told her 17-year-old niece the story of her debt as a cautionary tale "so the next generation of kids who want to get a higher education knows what they're getting into," she says. "I will likely have to deal with this debt for the rest of my life."

Living on a resident's wage is not easy, but it's not impossible. You don't buy a new car, you don't buy a house, you don't take vacations. It's all part of becoming a doctor in today's US based education system.

I know plenty of residents who managed debt, marriage and children. There's got to be more to the story than "the evil corporations are out to get me"

zzyzzx

02-14-2010, 06:23 AM

I like how they mention the situations with the two law students. How can you contribute such a tiny portion after they both take home six figure salaries? Sounds like they bought a big house to match their degree and a fancy car(s) to toot around in, instead of prioritizing.

Exactly what I was thinking. That and they spent too much while in school.

Hawk2007

02-14-2010, 07:22 AM

dont tell anyone that, they want to live in fairly land where doctors are uber rich fat cats sucking the life blood out of patients.

dont forget that she gets no tax breaks for her interest on these loans because she makes more than 75k per yr.

you mean you don't drive a ferrari and work two hours in the morning, three days a week and play golf at the club every day? :eek:

Hawk2007

02-14-2010, 07:25 AM

Living on a resident's wage is not easy, but it's not impossible. You don't buy a new car, you don't buy a house, you don't take vacations. It's all part of becoming a doctor in today's US based education system.

I know plenty of residents who managed debt, marriage and children. There's got to be more to the story than "the evil corporations are out to get me"

if you drink too much of the kool aid that once you graduate from medical school, you're entitled to a new M3 and live in a mansion, yeah, you'll go bankrupt. Even Mike Tyson went bankrupt and he's done better in his life than 99.99% of doctors.

Elmer

02-14-2010, 08:53 AM

Cal Western is a crap school. It's practically a correspondence college. He's lucky he even found a job! ;)

I realize it's a private school, and not part of your gravy train of union run state schools, where huge salaries and benefits, (regardless of competence) are the norm....but perhaps you should confine your self serving comments to subjects that aren't quite so obvious......

Founded in 1924, California Western School of Law (popularly known as California Western or Cal Western) is a private, non-profit law school located in San Diego, California. The school was accredited by the American Bar Association in 1962 and became a member of the Association of American Law Schools in 1967. It is the oldest law school in San Diego. California Western is home to both the Southern California and Hawaii "Innocence Projects." Its International Law Journal is among the oldest in the nation.

smegalicious

02-14-2010, 11:15 AM

I realize it's a private school, and not part of your gravy train of union run state schools, where huge salaries and benefits, (regardless of competence) are the norm....but perhaps you should confine your self serving comments to subjects that aren't quite so obvious......

http://www.wsulaw.edu/

:secret: Cal Western (http://www.cwsl.edu/main/home.asp) and Western State University (http://www.wsulaw.edu/) are two completely different law schools.

Perhaps you should confine your self-serving comments to subjects that aren't *quite* so obvious.

:cool:

Elmer

02-14-2010, 12:41 PM

Thanks to a pm, I'm advised that I used the wrong link and alumni list, and that a user I have blocked made one of their usual attacks based on minutia.... I stand corrected.

The first quote in my post was for the correct institution, I've corrected the link:

Founded in 1924, California Western School of Law (popularly known as California Western or Cal Western) is a private, non-profit law school located in San Diego, California. The school was accredited by the American Bar Association in 1962 and became a member of the Association of American Law Schools in 1967. It is the oldest law school in San Diego. California Western is home to both the Southern California and Hawaii "Innocence Projects." Its International Law Journal is among the oldest in the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Western_School_of_Law

smegalicious

02-14-2010, 12:53 PM

redpoint5

02-14-2010, 01:47 PM

Even medical school debt can become overwhelming...

The $555,000 Student-Loan Burden (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033063806327030.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_personalfinance)

How can a person like Bisutti become a doctor when they can't pay attention to the details of something that will significantly impact her lifestyle? What kind of dope agrees to a 10 point origination fee on a loan?

She maxed out on federal loans, borrowing $152,000 over four years, and sought private loans from Sallie Mae to help make up the difference. She also took out two loans from Wells Fargo & Co. for $20,000 each. Each had a $2,000 origination fee. The total amount she borrowed at the time: $250,000.

It always amazes me that commercials and advertisements with the message; "buy our product because you deserve it" is the most popular and effective marketing strategy. She has to be a disgusting consumer to be unable to make her $1,000 payments every month. I have no degree and could easily swing those payments while making zero changes to my current lifestyle. Bisutti needs to get a roommate and sell the Mercedes.

If art classes are required in college, certainly personal finance should be included in the not-optional course list for any degree. That and economics 101.

discoverEdeals

02-15-2010, 09:07 AM

The only way we can fix this is to make it easier for companies to fire people. If a company could hire three-four people for one-two jobs (entry level) it would make it easier to weed out the scrubs. The way it's set up now where degrees are required for most decent jobs is horrible. They are pretty much saying:

I know you're now close to your mid-twenties, and never worked a day in your life - but we'll take a look at you. In high school you studied hard, did a bunch of extra curriculars, sports, and got into a decent school. You borrowed money, partied, and passed. None of this will help you in our company, but we know you can at least read and write. You've been subjected to "culture". You aren't a total idiot. This other person MIGHT be a total idiot. We're gonna go with you.

We're not teaching our youth how to work, we're teaching them how to be dependent. Follow the system. It's pretty weak.

Ari Ben Canaan

02-16-2010, 11:56 AM

Doctor_Wu

02-16-2010, 12:46 PM

I love how this sort of articles always talk about people "discovering" there are no jobs with their useless degrees, or, better yet, "discovering" what the interest rates on their student loans are. Surely there was no reason to think about these petty details before going to school. It's all the system's fault!

In some ways there are no jobs w/o the useless degree either, in as much as a degree is required for so many things now. There's many jobs, there's just many more applicants... and a college or university often has a career office where they tell you all the things you can do with your degree.

There is no question that the society in which we live places a great deal of importance on going to college, I would even go so far as to suggest that it is painted as the 'remedy' for many of life's ills. "Education" is bandied about as the key to a better future, all those statistics are paraded out in front of us about how much more a college grad makes over their lifetime. Beyond that, people also see the 4 years in college as a period of discovery, not that this is necessary or appropriate, but that is how it is seen. The 18 year old person, largely educated in the public school system, where all his friends are also going to college, would have to stand up to societal tidal wave to resist it. That's a tall order. But it does happen in rare circumstances

As for the 'discovery' of the cost and the unfortunate reality of student loan payments. I don't think our debt accepting culture teaches people the pitfalls of debt ahead of time. I knew enough to avoid it, but many do not.

So, is it the fault of 'the system'?. I'm not sure I really conceive of it in that manner. It's just the way it's worked out. Society does have certain falsehoods that persist, this is one of them.

Dr. J

02-16-2010, 01:04 PM

In some ways there are no jobs w/o the useless degree either, in as much as a degree is required for so many things now. There's many jobs, there's just many more applicants... and a college or university often has a career office where they tell you all the things you can do with your degree.

There is no question that the society in which we live places a great deal of importance on going to college, I would even go so far as to suggest that it is painted as the 'remedy' for many of life's ills. "Education" is bandied about as the key to a better future, all those statistics are paraded out in front of us about how much more a college grad makes over their lifetime. Beyond that, people also see the 4 years in college as a period of discovery, not that this is necessary or appropriate, but that is how it is seen. The 18 year old person, largely educated in the public school system, where all his friends are also going to college, would have to stand up to societal tidal wave to resist it. That's a tall order. But it does happen in rare circumstances

As for the 'discovery' of the cost and the unfortunate reality of student loan payments. I don't think our debt accepting culture teaches people the pitfalls of debt ahead of time. I knew enough to avoid it, but many do not.

So, is it the fault of 'the system'?. I'm not sure I really conceive of it in that manner. It's just the way it's worked out. Society does have certain falsehoods that persist, this is one of them.

Frankly, I can remember when "signing" for loans it was rather automatic and the terms weren't specifically discussed. I'm not using this as a cop out but rather I think it's the parents' job to ensure that their children can grasp the idea of borrowing and responsibility. I firmly believe that if today's kids had more of a stake in their own education (e.g. through finances, which ultimately at this stage in life means loans), they'd spend more time studying and less time wasting money. We'd all like to blame "the system" but frankly without the parents' support, kids would have a tough time getting into college unless they had a pile of cash to fund their endeavors.

I spent 10 years in college and have 5 degrees - the first one put me $30k in the hole on debt which I am still paying for but I can distinctly remember feeling BAD that I was causing such a financial burden on my parents at the time (no doubt they ponied a lot of $$). I really think that helped me focus in that critical 1st year of college - the 1st year is perhaps the most crucial since for most kids this is their first real opportunity to be independent and make *key* decisions for themselves.

Fortunately the other 4 degrees more than paid for themselves since I am in a discipline which favors graduate work (engineering).

redpoint5

02-16-2010, 05:56 PM

I think it's the parents' job to ensure that their children can grasp the idea of borrowing and responsibility. I firmly believe that if today's kids had more of a stake in their own education (e.g. through finances, which ultimately at this stage in life means loans), they'd spend more time studying and less time wasting money. We'd all like to blame "the system" but frankly without the parents' support, kids would have a tough time getting into college unless they had a pile of cash to fund their endeavors.

I tend to disagree here. Yes, it is the responsibility of parents to produce adults that can function in the real world. However, basic finance should be something taught in high school, and it should be impossible to graduate without proving a minimal understanding of personal finance.

I also disagree with the notion that kids need financial help from their parents to attend college. Between grants, loans, scholarships, and earning a paycheck, nearly anyone can make it in America. Starting with some personal savings helps too. I graduated HS with $6k in the bank from an internship I worked 12hrs a week at.

smegalicious

02-17-2010, 01:12 PM

Dr. J

02-17-2010, 05:07 PM

I tend to disagree here. Yes, it is the responsibility of parents to produce adults that can function in the real world. However, basic finance should be something taught in high school, and it should be impossible to graduate without proving a minimal understanding of personal finance.

I also disagree with the notion that kids need financial help from their parents to attend college. Between grants, loans, scholarships, and earning a paycheck, nearly anyone can make it in America. Starting with some personal savings helps too. I graduated HS with $6k in the bank from an internship I worked 12hrs a week at.

OK then I am fine with that, but I am tired of people dumping their kids "on the system" then complaining that they lack basic skills or drop out. They are YOUR kids and YOUR responsibility. Take some initiative to teach them the ways of life rather than relying on someone else to do it FOR you.

While I'd like to believe that kids don't need their parents, in reality unless you are attending a state school where tuition is very low, in order to muster tuition you'll need loans, and even for most student loans your credit history comes into play which is why private loans often need cosigners.

redpoint5

02-17-2010, 08:15 PM

And your parents had no part in your ability to save that much money? :whistlin:

Of course they had a big part in my ability to save money. If they didn't provide food, clothing, and shelter, then I would have become a ward of the state. You are not really arguing against any point I have made. I acknowledge that outside financial help, is helpful. My point is that it isn't necessary.

OK then I am fine with that, but I am tired of people dumping their kids "on the system" then complaining that they lack basic skills or drop out. They are YOUR kids and YOUR responsibility. Take some initiative to teach them the ways of life rather than relying on someone else to do it FOR you.

I completely agree. It goes without saying that parents have the primary responsibility to produce successful offspring. However, a problem develops when the parents themselves lack these basic life skills, and fail to pass them on to their children. The safety net for the children then becomes adequate education and holding them accountable for basic knowledge.

While I'd like to believe that kids don't need their parents, in reality unless you are attending a state school where tuition is very low, in order to muster tuition you'll need loans, and even for most student loans your credit history comes into play which is why private loans often need cosigners.

I agree again. My claim is not that everyone can pay for the most expensive of schools, only that most anyone can find a way to earn a college degree if they arrange their priorities to achieve that goal.

rrc06

03-13-2010, 01:13 PM

It's not just the 4-year traditional schools playing the con game anymore...

Where People Pay $30k A Year To Make $10 An Hour (http://consumerist.com/2010/03/where-people-pay-30k-a-year-to-make-10-an-hour.html)

The New York Times takes a look at one dubious beneficiary of the recession, the for-profit trade school. These places offer training in fields like health care, computers and food service ...and enrollment is soaring.

The sales pitch says that students will be able to find gainful employment and pay back the massive students loans they take out to pay for the trade school -- but that's not always the case. And the recruiters apparently know it.

In Hard Times, Lured Into Trade School and Debt (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14schools.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1268514071-SVbQn8nB/9oMWTthlK7dBw&pagewanted=print)

One fast-growing American industry has become a conspicuous beneficiary of the recession: for-profit colleges and trade schools.

At institutions that train students for careers in areas like health care, computers and food service, enrollments are soaring as people anxious about weak job prospects borrow aggressively to pay tuition exceeding $30,000 a year.

But the profits have come at substantial taxpayer expense while often delivering dubious benefits to students, according to academics and advocates for greater oversight of financial aid. Critics say many schools exaggerate the value of their degree programs, selling young people on dreams of middle-class wages while setting them up for default on untenable debts, low-wage work and a struggle to avoid poverty. And the schools are harvesting growing federal student aid dollars, including Pell grants awarded to low-income students.

�If these programs keep growing, you�re going to wind up with more and more students who are graduating and can�t find meaningful employment,� said Rafael I. Pardo, a professor at Seattle University School of Law and an expert on educational finance. �They can�t generate income needed to pay back their loans, and they�re going to end up in financial distress.�

For-profit trade schools have long drawn accusations that they overpromise and underdeliver, but the woeful economy has added to the industry�s opportunities along with the risks to students, according to education experts. They say these schools have exploited the recession as a lucrative recruiting device while tapping a larger pool of federal student aid.

�They tell people, �If you don�t have a college degree, you won�t be able to get a job,� � said Amanda Wallace, who worked in the financial aid and admissions offices at the Knoxville, Tenn., branch of ITT Technical Institute, a chain of schools that charge roughly $40,000 for two-year associate degrees in computers and electronics. �They tell them, �You�ll be making beaucoup dollars afterward, and you�ll get all your financial aid covered.� �

Ms. Wallace left her job at ITT in 2008 after five years because she was uncomfortable with what she considered deceptive recruiting, which she said masked the likelihood that graduates would earn too little to repay their loans.

As a financial aid officer, Ms. Wallace was supposed to counsel students. But candid talk about job prospects and debt obligations risked the wrath of management, she said.

�If you said anything that went against what the recruiter said, they would threaten to fire you,� Ms. Wallace said. �The representatives would have already conned them into doing it, and you had to just keep your mouth shut.�

A spokeswoman for the school�s owner, ITT Educational Services, Lauren Littlefield, said the company had no comment.

The for-profit educational industry says it is fulfilling a vital social function, supplying job training that provides a way up the economic ladder.

�When the economy is rough and people are threatened with unemployment, they look to education as the way out,� said Harris N. Miller, president of the Career College Association, which represents approximately 1,400 such institutions. �We�re preparing people for careers.�

Concerned about aggressive marketing practices, the Obama administration is toughening rules that restrict institutions that receive federal student aid from paying their admissions recruiters on the basis of enrollment numbers.

The administration is also tightening regulations to ensure that vocational schools that receive aid dollars prepare students for �gainful employment.� Under a proposal being floated by the Department of Education, programs would be barred from loading students with more debt than justified by the likely salaries of the jobs they would pursue.

�During a recession, with increased demand for education and more anxiety about the ability to get a job, there is a heightened level of hazard,� said Robert Shireman, a deputy under secretary of education. �There is a lot of Pell grant money out there, and we need to make sure it�s being used effectively.�

The administration�s push has provoked fierce lobbying from the for-profit educational industry, which is seeking to maintain flexibility in the rules.

A Lucrative Business

The stakes are enormous: For-profit schools have long derived the bulk of their revenue from federal loans and grants, and the percentages have been climbing sharply.

The Career Education Corporation, a publicly traded global giant, last year reported revenue of $1.84 billion. Roughly 80 percent came from federal loans and grants, according to BMO Capital Markets, a research and trading firm. That was up from 63 percent in 2007.

The Apollo Group � which owns the for-profit University of Phoenix � derived 86 percent of its revenue from federal student aid last fiscal year, according to BMO. Two years earlier, it was 69 percent.

For-profit schools have proved adept at capturing Pell grants, which are a centerpiece of the Obama administration�s efforts to make higher education more affordable. The administration increased financing for Pell grants by $17 billion for 2009 and 2010 as part of its $787 billion stimulus package.

Two years ago, students at for-profit trade schools received $3.2 billion in Pell grants, according to the Department of Education, less than went to students at two-year public institutions. By the 2011-12 school year, the administration now estimates, students at for-profit schools should receive more than $10 billion in Pell grants, more than their public counterparts. (Those anticipated increases may shrink, depending on the outcome of wrangling in Congress over health care and student lending.)

Enrollment at for-profit trade schools expanded about 20 percent a year the last two years, more than double the pace from 2001-7, according to the Career College Association.

Mr. Miller, the association�s president, said for-profit schools were securing large numbers of Pell grants because their financial aid offices were diligent and because the schools served many low-income students.

But financial aid experts say the surge of federal money reaching such institutions reflects something else: their aggressive, sometimes deceitful recruiting practices.

Jeffrey West was working at a pet store near Philadelphia, earning about $8 an hour, when he saw advertisements for training programs offered by WyoTech, a chain of trade schools owned by Corinthian Colleges Inc., a publicly traded company that last year reported revenue of $1.3 billion.

After Mr. West called the school, an admissions representative drove to his house to sell him on classes in auto body refinishing and upholstering technology, a nine-month program that cost about $30,000.

Mr. West blanched at the tuition, he recalled, but the representative assured him the program amounted to an antidote to hard economic times.

�They said they had a very high placement rate, somewhere around 90 percent,� he said. �That was one of the key factors that caused me to go there. They said I would be earning $50,000 to $70,000 a year.�

Some 14 months after he completed the program, Mr. West, 21, has failed to find an automotive job. He is working for $12 an hour weatherizing foreclosed houses.

With loan payments reaching $600 a month, he is working six and seven days a week to keep up.

�I�ve got $30,000 in student loans, and I really don�t have much to show for it,� he said. �It�s really frustrating when you�re trying to better yourself and you wind up back at Square One.�

Corinthian says it bars its recruiters from making promises about pay.

�The majority of our students graduate,� said a spokeswoman, Anna Marie Dunlap, in a written statement. �Most see a significant earnings increase.�

The increase in market opportunities for the for-profit education industry comes as governments spend less on education. In states like California, community colleges have been forced to cut classes just when demand is greatest.

�This is creating a very ripe environment for the for-profit schools to pick off more students,� said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access & Success, a nonprofit research group based in California that seeks to make higher education more affordable. �The risks of exploitation are higher, and the potential rewards of those practices are higher.�

For-profit culinary schools have long drawn criticism for leading students to rack up large debts. Now, they are enjoying striking growth. Enrollment at the 17 culinary schools of the Career Education Corporation � most of them operated under the name Le Cordon Bleu � swelled by 31 percent in the final months of last year from a year earlier.

When Andrew Newburg called the Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts in Portland, Ore., to seek information, he was feeling pressure to start a new career. It was 2008, and his Florida mortgage business was a casualty of the housing bust. An associate degree in culinary arts from a school in the food-obsessed Pacific Northwest seemed like a portal to a new career.

The tuition was daunting � about $41,000 for a 14-month program � but he said the admissions recruiter portrayed it as the entrance price to a stable life.

�The recruiter said, �The way the economy is, with the recession, you need to have a safe way to be sure you will always have income,� � Mr. Newburg said. � �In today�s market, chefs will always have a job, because people will always have to eat.� �

According to Mr. Newburg, the recruiter promised the school would help him find a good job, most likely as a line cook, paying as much as $38,000 a year.

Last summer, halfway through his program and already carrying debts of about $10,000, Mr. Newburg was alarmed to see many graduates taking jobs paying as little as $8 an hour washing dishes and busing tables, he said. He dropped out to avoid more debt.

�They have a basic money-making machine,� Mr. Newburg said.

More Bills Than Paychecks

Career Education says admissions staff are barred from making promises about jobs or salaries. The school requires students to sign disclosures stating that they understand that its programs afford no guarantees.

But promotional materials convey a sense of promise.

�Our students are given the tools needed to become the future leaders in the industry,� proclaims the Le Cordon Bleu Web site. �Many graduates have attained positions of responsibility, visibility, and entrepreneurship soon after completing their studies.�

The job placement results that the school files with accrediting agencies suggest a different outcome. From July 2007 to June 2008, students who graduated from the culinary arts associate degree program landed jobs that paid an average of $21,000 a year, or about $10 an hour. Oregon�s minimum wage is $8.40 an hour.

The job placement list is cited in a class-action lawsuit filed against the Portland school � previously known as Western Culinary Institute � by graduates who allege fraud, breach of contract and unlawful trade practices. Executives at Career Education denied the allegations while asserting it would be wrong to judge the school on the basis of its graduates� first jobs.

�You go out in the industry and work your way up,� said Brian R. Williams, the company�s senior vice president for culinary arts.

On a recent morning at the campus in Portland, hundreds of students donning chef�s whites labored in demonstration kitchens stocked with stainless steel countertops and commercial gas ranges. A chef inspected plates of boeuf Bourgogne and risotto Milanese. Students melted and pulled sugar into multicolored ribbons. Others used a chainsaw to sculpture blocks of ice into decorative centerpieces.

�It�s employable skills; that�s what we teach people here,� said the school president, Jon Alberts. �We try to give them as much of an industry experience in the classroom as possible.�

But several local chefs said the program merely simulated what students could learn in entry-level jobs.

�When they graduate and come in the kitchen, I tell them, �I�m going to treat you like you don�t know anything,� � said Kenneth Giambalvo, executive chef at Bluehour, an upscale restaurant in Portland�s Pearl District. �It doesn�t really give them any edge.�

What the school does give many students is debt, often at double-digit interest rates � debt that even bankruptcy cannot erase without a lengthy, low-odds legal proceeding.

When TJ Williams arrived in Portland from his home in Utah to enroll at Le Cordon Bleu in 2007, he was shocked by the terms of the aid package the school had arranged for him: One loan, for nearly $14,000, carried a $7,327 �finance charge� and a 13 percent interest rate.

�They told me that halfway through the program, I could probably refinance to a lower rate,� he said.

When he tried to refinance, the school turned him down, he says.

Career Education declined to discuss Mr. Williams�s case, citing privacy restrictions and saying he had not signed a waiver.

Mr. Williams has been jobless since last fall and recently returned to Utah, where he moved in with his mother.

After Graduation

The Career Education Corporation e-mailed The New York Times names and contact information for four graduates �with whom we hope you�ll touch base for important perspective.� One came with a wrong number. A second had graduated 15 years ago.

A third, Cherie Thompson, called the program �a really positive experience� but declined to discuss her debts or earnings. The fourth, Ericsel Tan, graduated in 2003 and later earned $42,000 a year overseeing catering at a convention center near Seattle. He said his success reflected his seven years of kitchen experience prior to culinary school.

Career Education notes that only 5.9 percent of the federal loans to students at the Western Culinary Institute that began to come due in 2007 � the latest available data � are listed in default by the Department of Education.

But default rates have traditionally reflected only those borrowers who fail to pay in the first two years payments are due.

The Department of Education has begun calculating default rates for three years. By that yardstick, Western Culinary�s default rate more than doubles, to 12.5 percent.

For-profit schools have ramped up their own lending to students to replace loans formerly extended by Sallie Mae, the student lending giant.

These loans are risky: Career Education and Corinthian recently told investors they had set aside roughly half the money allocated this year for private lending to cover anticipated bad debts.

Financial aid experts say such high rates of expected default prove that graduates will not earn enough to make their payments, yet the loans make sense for the for-profit school industry by enabling the flow of taxpayer funds to their coffers: they satisfy federal requirements that at least 10 percent of tuition money come from students directly or from private sources.

�They�re making so much money off their federal student loans and grants that they can afford to write off their own loans,� said Ms. Asher of the Institute for College Access & Success.

milf

03-13-2010, 08:53 PM

College is a requirement these days, sort of like a high school degree. Getting a degree might not help you but not getting one will certainly hurt you.

pyro008

03-13-2010, 08:58 PM

College is a requirement these days, sort of like a high school degree. Getting a degree might not help you but not getting one will certainly hurt you.
Exactly. You probably could do a great job in a position that requires a 4 year degree right out of high school. That is, if you're hired, which basically means you have to know someone very well. Most people say that once you start working you don't really use a whole lot of what you learned in classes, but good luck using that excuse when looking for a job.

catluver

03-13-2010, 08:59 PM

College is a requirement these days, sort of like a high school degree. Getting a degree might not help you but not getting one will certainly hurt you.

There are plenty of jobs that pay well that don't require a college degree. Would you encourage a not so bright kid to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt just to boast a college degree?

redpoint5

03-14-2010, 12:11 AM

College is a requirement these days, sort of like a high school degree. Getting a degree might not help you but not getting one will certainly hurt you.

This is a very narrow view. Sure it will hurt someone that wants to be a brain surgeon if they don't get a degree, but there are plenty of people that would actually be hurt if they followed through with college and took on the debt and lost productivity that it entails.

There are plenty of jobs that pay well that don't require a college degree. Would you encourage a not so bright kid to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt just to boast a college degree?

Exactly. I would even argue there are instances where a very bright person would be better off not going to college. Would a degree have helped Bill Gates get further in life?

It may have been Reagan that responded to someone critical of his college achievement that he often wonders just what he could have become if only he had applied himself more in school.

pyro008

03-14-2010, 08:07 PM

Exactly. I would even argue there are instances where a very bright person would be better off not going to college. Would a degree have helped Bill Gates get further in life?

It may have been Reagan that responded to someone critical of his college achievement that he often wonders just what he could have become if only he had applied himself more in school.
Entrepreneurial endeavors are one of the few areas in which you really don't need a formal education. If you learn all about how to run a business on your own, and you actually obtain accurate information, you have a huge advantage over those who spent years in college and paid for it. However, for the majority of people who aren't going to become entrepreneurs (or not until after getting some work experience), you are at a significant disadvantage with your "learned it on my own from the internet" as opposed to a recognizable accreditation from a college.

Of course college is a waste if you don't try or don't have the ability to do well in it. However, for the average american college is a requirement.

It sure does feel pretty wasteful when you think that your GPA, your entire college career is primarily used solely to obtain your first job. I'd want to keep that on my resume my whole life just because of how much it cost.

catluver

03-14-2010, 08:17 PM

However, for the average american college is a requirement.

The average American IQ is 98. Do you really think college is a requirement?

karkaputto

03-15-2010, 11:35 AM

personally, i think most people in the united states do not need four year degrees.
germany has a pretty good system i think. some kids go to college prep for secondary educations, and some kids go straight to trade school. they decide tracks for kids pretty early (as early as 4th grade), and i think it'd be better if schools waited longer, but it seems to me that a lot of money, time, and anguish is saved with their system.

riznick

03-16-2010, 10:34 AM

redpoint5

03-16-2010, 12:48 PM

College is overvalued in most cases
Too many people go to college. Most people who go to college never utilize their degree. A lot of people don't even know what they want to do when they enter college. There are way too many people with college degrees that really don't need them for their profession. The only reason to have a degree, for many people, is because other people have degrees.

In my opinion (if we are going to partially subsidize college):

Only career oriented courses should get subsidized.
1. General Electives courses such as biology or chemistry should have no subsidy at all unless it is necessary for the major. An engineer might need chemistry, but a computer scientist shouldn't need it. Most of these classes are a regurgitation of what we learned in high school. If a student really wants to take one of these courses, they should be allowed to at a higher price. No reason for a tax payer to subsidize someone's curiosity.

2. Taxpayer funded colleges should reduce the # of the mentioned pointless classes. Colleges could increase prices and decrease the # of required classes. If colleges decreased 25% of the courses, and made a 25% increase in price, the student would actually have less student debt. Also students can get a job more quickly and pay off their debts earlier.

Yes.

The problem is that our institutions of higher education are inefficient and outdated. Why does it take exactly 4 years to be proficient in any subject? It doesn't matter if someone studies a branch of engineering, or a branch of art, the requirement for graduating with a bachelors is 4 years of school.

If the point of education is to equip people with necessary skills for a particular field of work, then the requirements for certification in that field should reflect actual occupational needs. This means that some degrees would take longer to complete than others.

One way we can level the economic playing field so that people of all income levels have a chance to become certified in a particular field, is to allow avenues of certification that don't necessarily involve teaching the skills. What I mean by this is that a person should be able to research a subject through whatever avenues they wish, and have credibility in the labor market by taking tests that verify their proficiency. This would reduce the cost of obtaining credentials to the cost of proctoring a test. This system would allow those that need very structured learning to take traditional classes and receive a degree, but also allow those who don't have the means to pay for classes, or prefer to learn independently to receive a degree of equal market value (or close to it).

Candide

03-16-2010, 01:08 PM

Candide

03-16-2010, 01:10 PM

If the point of education is to equip people with necessary skills for a particular field of work, then the requirements for certification in that field should reflect actual occupational needs. This means that some degrees would take longer to complete than others.

Like most large organizations, the point of higher education has become to propagate higher and higher education without regard for the need or benefit of that higher education.

Parafly9

03-16-2010, 01:21 PM

Like any investment, college is no sure thing.

Only pays off when you invest in the right degree and the right college.

You should not invest only for a monetary return, but rather in order to do what you want to do for a living.

I know I could not have had a career doing what interests me without a college degree.

I agree with the right degree, but do you think the right college really matters/

Unless you go to a very high level ivy league school, (yale, harvard) where you build networks and relationships, I'm not so convinced a state school is any different from a standard private school that costs 10x as much.

My wife and I both have master's (mine in business, hers in education) and our loans are about $60 or $70k right now. Only about $10k of that came from our regular educations, and $50k from my 2 year stint at Bentley for an MBA. Not sure if it was worth it yet. I think it did help me get my job here, and I learned a lot, but it's hard ot say where I would if I hadn't gotten that degree?

karkaputto

03-16-2010, 06:00 PM

i think you can build networks and relationships at almost any school. everyone goes somewhere, and a lot of people at mediocre schools go on to be very successful men and women.

however, from the way i see it, private schools that aren't near the top still aren't worth it. if you're getting an education to prove to employers you know what's up, it seems to me that you'd be better off going to a school that everyone's heard of (i.e. a state school) than an obscure, expensive private school.

rrc06

05-29-2010, 05:22 AM

Is it NYU's responsibility save people from their overpriced tuition?

Placing the Blame as Students Are Buried in Debt (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/your-money/student-loans/29money.html?WT.mc_id=BU-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-LMM-052810-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click)

Like many middle-class families, Cortney Munna and her mother began the college selection process with a grim determination. They would do whatever they could to get Cortney into the best possible college, and they maintained a blind faith that the investment would be worth it.

Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she�s been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments.

This is not a long-term solution, because the interest on the loans continues to pile up. So in an eerie echo of the mortgage crisis, tens of thousands of people like Ms. Munna are facing a reckoning. They and their families made borrowing decisions based more on emotion than reason, much as subprime borrowers assumed the value of their houses would always go up.

Meanwhile, universities like N.Y.U. enrolled students without asking many questions about whether they could afford a $50,000 annual tuition bill. Then the colleges introduced the students to lenders who underwrote big loans without any idea of what the students might earn someday � just like the mortgage lenders who didn�t ask borrowers to verify their incomes.

Ms. Munna does not want to walk away from her loans in the same way many mortgage holders are. It would be difficult in any event because federal bankruptcy law makes it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debts. But unless she manages to improve her income quickly, she doesn�t have a lot of good options for digging out.

It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can repel potential life partners. For starters, it�s a shared failure of parenting and loan underwriting.

But perhaps the biggest share lies with colleges and universities because they have the most knowledge of the financial aid process. And I would argue that they had an obligation to counsel students like Ms. Munna, who got in too far over their heads.

How many people are like her? According to the College Board�s Trends in Student Aid study, 10 percent of people who graduated in 2007-8 with student loans had borrowed $40,000 or more. The median debt for bachelor�s degree recipients who borrowed while attending private, nonprofit colleges was $22,380.

The Project on Student Debt, a research and advocacy organization in Oakland, Calif., used federal data to estimate that 206,000 people graduated from college (including many from for-profit universities) with more than $40,000 in student loan debt in that same period. That�s a ninefold increase over the number of people in 1996, using 2008 dollars.

The Family

No one forces borrowers to take out these loans, and Ms. Munna and her mother, Cathryn, have spent the years since her graduation trying to understand where they went wrong. Ms. Munna�s father died when she was 13, after a series of illnesses.

She started college at age 17 and borrowed as much money as she could under the federal loan program. To make up the difference between her grants and work study money and the total cost of attending, her mother co-signed two private loans with Sallie Mae totaling about $20,000.

When they applied for a third loan, however, Sallie Mae rejected the application, citing Cathryn�s credit history. She had returned to college herself to finish her bachelor�s degree and was also borrowing money. N.Y.U. suggested a federal Plus loan for parents, but that would have required immediate payments, something the mother couldn�t afford. So before Cortney�s junior year, N.Y.U. recommended that she apply for a private student loan on her own with Citibank.

Over the course of the next two years, starting when she was still a teenager, she borrowed about $40,000 from Citibank without thinking much about how she would pay it back. How could her mother have let her run up that debt, and why didn�t she try to make her daughter transfer to, say, the best school in the much cheaper state university system in New York? �All I could see was college, and a good college and how proud I was of her,� Cathryn said. �All we needed to do was get this education and get the good job. This is the thing that eats away at me, the na�vet� on my part.�

But Cortney resists the idea that this is a tale of bad parenting. �To me, it would be an uncharitable reading,� she said. �My mother has tried her best, and I don�t blame her for anything in this.�

The Lender

Sallie Mae gets a pass here, in my view. A responsible grownup co-signed for its loans to the Munnas, and the company eventually cut them off.

But what was Citi thinking, handing over $40,000 to an undergraduate who had already amassed debt well into the five figures? This was, in effect, a �no doc� or at least a �low doc� subprime mortgage loan.

A Citi spokesman declined to comment, even though Ms. Munna was willing to sign a waiver giving Citi permission to talk about her loans. Perhaps the bank worried that once it approved one loan, cutting her off would have led her to drop out or transfer and have trouble paying back the loan.

Today, someone like Ms. Munna might not qualify for the $40,000 she borrowed. But as the economy rebounds, there is little doubt that plenty of lenders will step forward to roll the dice on desperate students, especially because the students generally can�t get rid of the debt in bankruptcy court.

The University

The financial aid office often has the best picture of what students like Ms. Munna are up against, because they see their families� financial situation splayed out on the federal financial aid form. So why didn�t N.Y.U. tell Ms. Munna that she simply did not belong there once she�d passed, say, $60,000 in total debt?

�Had somebody called me and said, �Do you have a clue where this is all headed?�, it would have been a slap in the face, but a slap in the face that I needed,� said Cathryn Munna. �When financial aid told her that they could get her $2,000 more in loans, they should have been saying �You are in deep doo-doo, little girl.� �

That�s not a role that the university wants to take on, though. �I think that would be completely inappropriate,� said Randall Deike, the vice president of enrollment management for N.Y.U., who oversees admissions and financial aid. �Some families will do whatever it takes for their son or daughter to be not just at N.Y.U., but any first-choice college. I�m not sure that�s always the best decision, but it�s one that they really have to make themselves.�

The complications here go well beyond the propriety of suggesting that a student enroll elsewhere. Colleges don�t always know how much debt its students are taking on, which makes it hard to offer good counsel. (N.Y.U. does appear to have known about all of Ms. Munna�s loans, though.)

Then there�s a branding problem. Urging students to attend a cheaper college or leave altogether suggests a lack of confidence about the earning potential of alumni. Nobody wants to admit that. And once a university starts encouraging middle-class students to go elsewhere, it must fill its classes with more children of the wealthy and a much smaller number of low-income students to whom it can afford to offer enormous scholarships. That�s hardly an ideal outcome either.

Finally, universities exist to enroll students, not turn them away. �Aid administrators want to keep their jobs,� said Joan H. Crissman, interim president and chief executive of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. �If the administration finds out that you�re encouraging students to go to a cheaper school just because you don�t think they can handle the debt load, I don�t think that�s going to mesh very well.�

That doesn�t change the fact, however, that the financial aid office is still in the best position to see trouble coming and do something to stop it. University officials should take on this obligation, even if they aren�t willing to advise students to attend another college.

Instead, they might deputize a gang of M.B.A. candidates or alumni in the financial services industry to offer free financial planning to admitted students and their families. Mr. Deike also noted that the bigger problem here is one of financial literacy. Fine. He and N.Y.U. are in a great position to solve for that by making every financial aid recipient take a financial planning class. The students could even use their families as the case study.

The Options

The balance on Cortney Munna�s loans is about $97,000, including all of her federal loans and her private debt from Sallie Mae and Citibank. What are her options for digging out?

Her mother can�t help without selling her bed and breakfast, and then she�d have no home. She could take her daughter in, but there aren�t good ways for her to earn a living in Alexandria Bay, in upstate New York.

Cortney could move someplace cheaper than her current home city of San Francisco, but she worries about her job prospects, even with her N.Y.U. diploma.

She recently received a raise and now makes $22 an hour working for a photographer. It�s the highest salary she�s earned since graduating with an interdisciplinary degree in religious and women�s studies. After taxes, she takes home about $2,300 a month. Rent runs $750, and the full monthly payments on her student loans would be about $700 if they weren�t being deferred, which would not leave a lot left over.

She may finally be earning enough to barely scrape by while still making the payments for the first time since she graduated, at least until interest rates rise and the payments on her loans with variable rates spiral up. And while her job requires her to work nights and weekends sometimes, she probably should find a flexible second job to try to bring in a few extra hundred dollars a month.

Ms. Munna understands this tough love, buck up, buckle-down advice. But she also badly wants to call a do-over on the last decade. �I don�t want to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for four years and would happily give back,� she said. �It feels wrong to me.�

Religious studies? OMFG --- talk about a waste of a bachelor's degree.... It could have easily been obtained at a state school for less :shake:

aggs23

05-29-2010, 05:38 AM

When will we hold these greedy universities accountable for taking advantage of our children?

Hawk2007

05-29-2010, 06:54 AM

Is it NYU's responsibility save people from their overpriced tuition?

Religious studies? OMFG --- talk about a waste of a bachelor's degree.... It could have easily been obtained at a state school for less :shake:

If a counselor tells you that you should go to college to "study what you're interested in"..... RUN from that counselor because he/she is half-retarded.

College is an investment, like a house, land, stock market or any other investment. You're spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the idea that over a lifetime, you will receive a return on your investment. (why else spend those tens of thousands of dollars, thousands of hours studying, and taking exams and passing courses if you're no better off than you were before?)

If you get a degree in something that does not create value for an employer, you won't be hired. It's that simple. You can whine, bitch, complain, blame George W. Bush, cite racism/sexism/homophobism, etc., but if you do not have skills an employer needs, you do not get a job. It really is that simple.

This is also why law school is such a crappy investment. Law schools are a dime a dozen and frankly, if you can't get into a T-14 school, you probably should not go. Anybody can get into a law school. Period. If you can graduate from any four year college with a degree, and you have a pulse, you can get into some law school somewhere. Kids go there with the idea that "oh, I want a professional degree". :lol: There are so many law schools in America that it's not really "special" or "prestigious" that you got into law school. HOWEVER, if you get into a T-14 school, then by all means, that is something to be proud of. (even then, t-14 grads are having a tough time in some cases as they're being furloughed because of the recession)

I've never heard of America having a nationwide or regional shortage in lawyers like you do with engineers, healthcare providers, certain computer fields, etc.

People can be very dumb about college and law school.

rrc06

05-29-2010, 07:14 AM

This is also why law school is such a crappy investment. Law schools are a dime a dozen and frankly, if you can't get into a T-14 school, you probably should not go. Anybody can get into a law school. Period. If you can graduate from any four year college with a degree, and you have a pulse, you can get into some law school somewhere. Kids go there with the idea that "oh, I want a professional degree". :lol: There are so many law schools in America that it's not really "special" or "prestigious" that you got into law school. HOWEVER, if you get into a T-14 school, then by all means, that is something to be proud of. (even then, t-14 grads are having a tough time in some cases as they're being furloughed because of the recession)

If you substitute an MBA school for law school, your observations still hold.

Krazen1211

05-29-2010, 08:08 AM

Ms. Munna understands this tough love, buck up, buckle-down advice. But she also badly wants to call a do-over on the last decade. �I don�t want to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for four years and would happily give back,� she said. �It feels wrong to me.�

:vomit:

Well, that's the problem, Ms. Munna. You can foreclose a house and repossess a car. You can't give back an education.

Why exactly are we subsidizing this nonsense?

txp135

05-29-2010, 09:39 AM

Hawk2007

05-29-2010, 10:29 AM

This problem starts way earlier than college. This problem starts with the public school system. When we are forcing every kids to be in school, we end up holding many of them back. You can have many 8th graders who have the same (or better) standing in academics than most 12th grader. Public schools became a daycare center long ago.

I only finished 6th grade in my former country and I was an average student. We only had school for half a day - they split schools into morning and afternoon sessions. I came here and started 8th grade - which I didn't do much because I couldn't speak English. I did not really start to understand school materials until the middle of 9th grade. By this time, I was taking all the basic courses. So in 10th and 11th grade I was playing catch up and I was able to make up for lost times and took all the courses which enabled me to sign up for all the advanced placement courses by 12th grade. If I did not do this, then I could still graduate but at a significantly lower standard.

The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers.

Well said. If English really was not your first language, I would not have known had you not mentioned it.

ASG

05-29-2010, 11:05 AM

This problem starts way earlier than college. This problem starts with the public school system. When we are forcing every kids to be in school, we end up holding many of them back. You can have many 8th graders who have the same (or better) standing in academics than most 12th grader. Public schools became a daycare center long ago.

I only finished 6th grade in my former country and I was an average student. We only had school for half a day - they split schools into morning and afternoon sessions. I came here and started 8th grade - which I didn't do much because I couldn't speak English. I did not really start to understand school materials until the middle of 9th grade. By this time, I was taking all the basic courses. So in 10th and 11th grade I was playing catch up and I was able to make up for lost times and took all the courses which enabled me to sign up for all the advanced placement courses by 12th grade. If I did not do this, then I could still graduate but at a significantly lower standard.

The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers.
So what do you recommend? That you not have been educated?

sah0724

05-29-2010, 01:51 PM

When will we hold these greedy universities accountable for taking advantage of our children?

Not going to happen, it will help with more regulation but people are against that and want less regulation and more freedom and more freedom equals more greed.

karkaputto

05-30-2010, 01:01 PM

information asymmetry doesn't exist. free markets solve all problems!

zzyzzx

06-01-2010, 08:14 AM

So what do you recommend? That you not have been educated?

They can work fast food, construction, landscaping, pick fruit, etc. In other words, they can displace a Mexican, as nature intended.

txp135

06-01-2010, 08:36 AM

So what do you recommend? That you not have been educated?

One additional recommendation would be to test the reading comprehension level of every Senior before graduation. If you don't read, you can't comprehend. Please read the last paragraph where I put in some recommendations:

"The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers."

compguy

06-01-2010, 09:20 AM

I'd like to comment on this that I'm an advocate of public schools, but I also agree they need to be redesigned around the students rather than around "standards". Students who are obviously more advanced should not have to sit there waiting for their grade level to catch up with their ability and be bored if they score well enough. There should be continual assessments of their work to determine what level they're performing at and advancing them faster if they have demonstrated ability in different areas.

ASG

06-01-2010, 09:21 AM

One additional recommendation would be to test the reading comprehension level of every Senior before graduation. If you don't read, you can't comprehend. Please read the last paragraph where I put in some recommendations:

"The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers."
So you're recommending we hire a ton more teachers so that everybody can advance on their own level at their own time?

compguy

06-01-2010, 09:45 AM

ASG

06-01-2010, 10:08 AM

I think you're missing what he's saying. Not necessarily more teachers, more restructuring so that most teaching isn't to bored students who are playing with paper clips because they're bored. There's a fair amount of needless teaching time where far too much time is spent on very simple concepts or tasks.
People are going to pick up different material and different rates.

English: some people read faster than others, some understand faster than others, some are able to understand how to write about it faster than others: some are a combination, some aren't. Each book has its own learning curve based on how much each individual student "gets into it."

History: same thing as English

Math: each concept can be picked up by some people quicker than others. It took me longer to figure out geometry than it took me to figure out calculus.

Science: Same as math. I hated bio but glided through physics.

We already have regular, honors and advanced tracks. How do we add more tracks without adding more teachers?

Krazen1211

06-01-2010, 12:15 PM

They can work fast food, construction, landscaping, pick fruit, etc. In other words, they can displace a Mexican, as nature intended.

Bingo. There are some people and groups of people that are lost causes. Cut the cord and move on.

txp135

06-04-2010, 07:10 AM

People are going to pick up different material and different rates.

English: some people read faster than others, some understand faster than others, some are able to understand how to write about it faster than others: some are a combination, some aren't. Each book has its own learning curve based on how much each individual student "gets into it."

History: same thing as English

Math: each concept can be picked up by some people quicker than others. It took me longer to figure out geometry than it took me to figure out calculus.

Science: Same as math. I hated bio but glided through physics.

We already have regular, honors and advanced tracks. How do we add more tracks without adding more teachers?

Maybe we can graduate kids on merits rather than age? Maybe we don't force kids to sit in classes which are too easy for them but let them pursue their interests instead? Most highschool require 4 yr of English/math/history. They would graduate an 18 yr old who can barely read but wouldn't let a 16 yr study something else instead of Math/English if he finds it too easy for him and he already knows the materials.

ASG

06-04-2010, 07:29 AM

Maybe we can graduate kids on merits rather than age? Maybe we don't force kids to sit in classes which are too easy for them but let them pursue their interests instead? Most highschool require 4 yr of English/math/history. They would graduate an 18 yr old who can barely read but wouldn't let a 16 yr study something else instead of Math/English if he finds it too easy for him and he already knows the materials.
Nothing's stopping some kid from graduating early. Some baseball player just did that so that he can enter the draft a year early.

txp135

06-06-2010, 06:11 PM

Nothing's stopping some kid from graduating early. Some baseball player just did that so that he can enter the draft a year early.

I have a cousin who was a borderline criminal when he started school - because he was too smart. He spent most of his time in detention because he was too bored in classes and became destructive. His parents had to jump through hoops to get them to allow him to skip 1st grade but he was still frustrated. They didn't know what to do but luckily they found a PRIVATE school that would give him a scholarship. By 9th grade he already secured a scholarship to any college he wants to go to when he graduate.

rrc06

07-12-2010, 08:24 PM

at least the MSM is starting to talk about this topic...

Are you borrowing too much for college? (http://moremoney.blogs.money.cnn.com/2010/07/12/are-you-borrowing-too-much-for-college/)

When it comes to soaring college costs, much of the blame has been leveled at the colleges themselves � and their nonstop spending on everything from lavish student centers to generous salaries for administrators.

Certainly the schools deserve criticism for their extravagant outlays. But what's often overlooked is the role of the parents and students who are determined to pay lofty prices for brand-name schools, even if it means going deeply and dangerously into debt.

Want proof? Consider the recent efforts by New York University, which costs $54,000 a year, to warn families that they might be borrowing too much to send their child to the school. As The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last month, NYU contacted families of 1,800 students over the past year � about 25% of those accepted who qualified for aid � to make sure they understood their potential debt loads. But the calls ending up having absolutely no effect � zero � on the rate of students who chose to enroll.

NYU should get some credit for at least trying to warn families about their financial situations. With one of the lowest per-student endowments among elite colleges, NYU cannot afford to meet the full financial need of its students, while the aid that is available comes mainly in the form of loans. As a result, its grads end up with an average of $34,850 worth of debt � 50% higher than the $23,200 national average for students who borrow. The school's heavy debt burden drew national attention recently, when The New York Times profiled a 26-year-old NYU grad with nearly $100,000 in loans who is struggling to repay them.

So why do so many parents and students make such poor financial decisions? For starters, many families still believe that all higher education debt is "good" debt, since a degree will automatically lead to a well-paying job. As a corollary, they buy into the "Chivas Regal" effect, as marketers call it � the notion that a costlier college is necessarily better than a less-pricey school.

Then there's the issue of financial illiteracy. You might not expect most 17-year-olds to fully understand loans or the obligations that come with them. But all too often their parents are equally ill-informed; one recent College Board study, for example, found that families earning $100,000 or more were most likely to opt for private loans, which are more costly than federal aid. And families get little help from most colleges, who do not see it as their role to be financial advisers or to discourage students from attending.

The Great Recession may be changing all that, however. With many recent college grads still searching for work � even those with prestigious degrees � many families are becoming more realistic about what they can afford. After all, you don't have to borrow immense amounts to get a college education. The in-state cost for the average four-year public college is just $15,000 a year. And you can still find private colleges that limit the amount that middle-class families need to borrow.

If you do need to get loans for college, be sure to figure out what those monthly payments will look like at graduation (try the loan calculator at FinAid, the informative college-financing site). How much debt is too much? Most experts recommend keeping your payments to no more than 10% of the income you expect to earn after graduation.

rrc06

08-02-2010, 07:35 PM

Seven Reasons Not to Send Your Kids to College (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/seven-reasons-not-to-send-your-kids-to-college/19572537/)

The most interesting points IMO:

2. The cost of the average college tuition has gone up nine-fold since 1976 versus seven-fold for health care and three-fold for inflation.

3. The differential in lifetime income between a college graduate and a non-college graduate over a 45 year career is approximately $800,000 (read on).

4. If I put that $200,000 that I would've spent per child to cover tuition costs, living expenses, books, etc. into bonds yielding just 3% (any muni bonds) and let it compound for 49 years (adding back in the 4 years of college), I get $851,000. So my kids can avoid college and still end up with the same amount in the worst case.

theflintseeker

08-02-2010, 09:29 PM

Thank you for posting this. While this article addresses the law school experience, I have been following the for-profit college debacle for a while. I actually know someone attending Western School of Law right now. I think it is important that before taking on any kind of significant debt that the debtor READ all of the terms of the contract. Whether its an ARM mortgage or an interest bearing student loan, the terms are important and can affect where you will be in 5, 10 or 20 years.

I think the problem about college experiences like the ones shown here is expectation. Fresh out of school myself, there is definitely an air of entitlement, and the kids expect companies to come and give them $60k+ jobs with a mediocre GPA in a liberal arts program. Certainly this salary is possible for someone with a high GPA in a field like engineering, but not for most.

joer316

08-03-2010, 10:07 AM

great thread and great title :thumbup:

smegalicious

08-03-2010, 12:09 PM

Seven Reasons Not to Send Your Kids to College (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/seven-reasons-not-to-send-your-kids-to-college/19572537/)

The most interesting points IMO:
I find it difficult to give the op-ed writer much credibility when he ends w/little gems like this:

Do nothing but read. Get the benefits of a college education without paying the $200,000. I'd be happy to support a child that wants to home school a college education.

:rolleyes:

Steady

08-03-2010, 12:12 PM

I find it difficult to give the op-ed writer much credibility when he ends w/little gems like this:

Do nothing but read. Get the benefits of a college education without paying the $200,000. I'd be happy to support a child that wants to home school a college education.

:rolleyes:

What is wrong with that statement for a large component of our populace? I am in agreement with the general idea of eschewing college - though for certain specialty professions (ie: medicine), which require a great degree of "hands-on" work, I believe college is necessary.

College has become a debt funnel, and far too many never use the degree they earned in their professional lives (which is, itself, evidence of the futility of it in many cases).

smegalicious

08-03-2010, 12:17 PM

What is wrong with that statement for a large component of our populace? I am in agreement with the general idea of eschewing college - though for certain specialty professions (ie: medicine), which require a great degree of "hands-on" work, I believe college is necessary.

College has become a debt funnel, and far too many never use the degree they earned in their professional lives (which is, itself, evidence of the futility of it in many cases).

The fact that you cannot replicate a legitimate college education by "doing nothing but read[ing]."

Steady

08-03-2010, 12:34 PM

The fact that you cannot replicate a legitimate college education by "doing nothing but read[ing]."

You can choose to take the statement literally, or you could assimilate into a legitimate view of it, which is that one's experiences - combined with being well-read - will more that supplant many types of college education.

One can be tested for acuity on any number of topics, so why not let those who wish to pursue a specific career do just that, instead of making only those who have attended college do so?

redpoint5

08-03-2010, 07:19 PM

The fact that you cannot replicate a legitimate college education by "doing nothing but read[ing]."

That depends on the person and the college education being pursued. It would be very difficult for a person to read themselves into a doctor of medicine. However, I am every bit as capable (and more) without a college degree as my peers at work who have a related college education. In fact, I earn 25% more than all of them (and they all have degrees).

Perhaps I am an exception, but the thrust of the message is not that higher education is entirely unnecessary, only that it is unnecessary (and sometimes harmful) to some.

rrc06

08-04-2010, 06:30 AM

I find it difficult to give the op-ed writer much credibility when he ends w/little gems like this:

Do nothing but read. Get the benefits of a college education without paying the $200,000. I'd be happy to support a child that wants to home school a college education.

:rolleyes:

of course the points I picked out had nothing to do with that "little gem" :rolleyes: I find it interesting that you decided to completely ignore the points that I actually quoted and hard to dispute, despite whatever the op-ed's feelings on home schooling are.

ASG

08-04-2010, 08:13 AM

of course the points I picked out had nothing to do with that "little gem" :rolleyes: I find it interesting that you decided to completely ignore the points that I actually quoted and hard to dispute, despite whatever the op-ed's feelings on home schooling are.
I'll say something.

Item 1: Yea, college is getting more expensive, but not to the degree that the stat makes it sound. Financial aid, and not just in the loan department.

Item 2: Related to item 1, assumes you have $200K on you to invest, which most people don't. Also assumes that average = "worst case" somehow. Also somehow assumes living expenses and books won't exist if they don't go to college.

Krazen1211

08-04-2010, 08:24 AM

The fact that you cannot replicate a legitimate college education by "doing nothing but read[ing]."

Nope, that requires booze, other forms of narcotics, and other types of debauchery.

ASG

08-04-2010, 08:31 AM

Nope, that requires booze, other forms of narcotics, and other types of debauchery.
And some teachers, too.

Dr. J

08-04-2010, 08:55 AM

The fact that you cannot replicate a legitimate college education by "doing nothing but read[ing]."

eh generally I guess that's true - there's a certain amount to be said for having the insight of learned people to guide you (regardless of how hard you try, there are some things that can't simply be learned from reading a book), and you cannot learn chemistry with a few chemicals in your sink.......

HOWEVER

many courses - and I speak from an engineering background - are almost exclusively taught from a book, and many books are written well enough that you can just read through, learn important concepts, etc etc. Assuming you have a good background (e.g. good science/math education in HS) and enough will and determination, you could probably learn enough through coursebooks and online information to place out of 75%+ of the coursework required to get a BS (the rest being mostly lab work and other capstone courses). The issue is, as I said - having a resource that you can bounce ideas off of and straighten out concepts that may not translate well from text, and that's a teacher.

Then there's the cooperative dynamic that's difficult to quantify - in engineering, college is as much about group work, leadership, etc etc as it is hardcore science & math. In fact, I'd say that employers look more for experience in teams and the general capacity to learn and tackle problems than for specific knowledge.

redpoint5

08-04-2010, 09:49 AM

there's a certain amount to be said for having the insight of learned people to guide you... The issue is, as I said - having a resource that you can bounce ideas off of and straighten out concepts that may not translate well from text, and that's a teacher.

Learned people are not exclusive to colleges (although they sure are concentrated there). I can get guidance from learned people from a variety of sources, and have even bounced ideas off people in this forum. In fact, I often throw ideas out to the net and have learned people scrutinize them.

Then there's the cooperative dynamic that's difficult to quantify - in engineering, college is as much about group work, leadership, etc etc as it is hardcore science & math. In fact, I'd say that employers look more for experience in teams and the general capacity to learn and tackle problems than for specific knowledge.

I suppose the value of teamwork experience depends on the type of job. A person just now asked if I had gone to school to learn my trade, and I replied that I don't have not even taken a single related class. Reading and experience account for 100% of my ability, which says a lot to employers about my self-motivation to learn and to take on new problems.

Krazen1211

08-04-2010, 09:52 AM

And some teachers, too.

Perhaps. But the public can't afford teachers anymore, so its moot.

ASG

08-04-2010, 10:44 AM

Perhaps. But the public can't afford teachers anymore, so its moot.
Says you?

Neo Tocqueville

08-04-2010, 11:01 AM

Seven Reasons Not to Send Your Kids to College (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/seven-reasons-not-to-send-your-kids-to-college/19572537/) I agree with the idea behind this column but, boy, the piece is riddled with inaccuracies, hyperboles and downright non-sense.

If you want to grab something serious, newly released (i.e., yesterday!) book "Higher Education? (http://highereducationquestionmark.com/)" might be a good read. I say might because I've just finished reading the first chapter and a half. :D But having reading an interview with the authors (http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/07/whats-wrong-with-the-american-university-system/60458/) in The Atlantic, it does seem like an interesting dissection of the problem and a proposed solution.

The trouble I see with most of the suggestions on reforming higher education is that they stray too far from the norm. They are, in other words, too radical. That basically makes them non-starters because for all its real and perceived flaws, the system seems to be working fine to far too many people. American higher ed system remains the model the rest of the world is trying to emulate and our institutions remains the most sought-after by exceptional students from all over the world. So, to argue that a radical change at these institutions is needed, and NOW, seems out-of-proportion. The common refrain from people who favor the status quo is why fix something that ain't broken, in other words. And, they're not entirely wrong.

Dr. J

08-04-2010, 11:05 AM

Learned people are not exclusive to colleges (although they sure are concentrated there). I can get guidance from learned people from a variety of sources, and have even bounced ideas off people in this forum. In fact, I often throw ideas out to the net and have learned people scrutinize them.

I suppose the value of teamwork experience depends on the type of job. A person just now asked if I had gone to school to learn my trade, and I replied that I don't have not even taken a single related class. Reading and experience account for 100% of my ability, which says a lot to employers about my self-motivation to learn and to take on new problems.

That's certain - I guess there are forums online (or if you're lucky to know someone in the field) where you can have an open discussion but let's be frank - the majority of the time for most people this just isn't possible. Taking a class and having a professor at your disposal to emails and office hours is far and above anything you could possibly get in someone's free time participating in online forums. Granted, I am speaking about technical resources. If you want to discuss issues with "learned" people in some sort of purely philosophical field then you may have better chances.

Neo Tocqueville

08-04-2010, 11:11 AM

Learned people are not exclusive to colleges (although they sure are concentrated there). I can get guidance from learned people from a variety of sources, and have even bounced ideas off people in this forum. In fact, I often throw ideas out to the net and have learned people scrutinize them. You're right, but I think that actually points to a failing at our universities which is quite fundamental.

The job of the university shouldn't be to "hire" the people with the best minds and ideas. It should be to serve as a host to such people and the students who want to learn from them. Or, more generally to host discourse.

That's one thing where I feel that our universities are falling well short of.

Which brings me to a question I've wondered about: ever since you left college, have you ever went to a university event (at any university) that was not sporting or arts/culture related?

Krazen1211

08-04-2010, 11:13 AM

Says you?

Well, actually, says the states.

Why do you think all these governors are crying for more washington money?

redpoint5

08-04-2010, 12:05 PM

You're right, but I think that actually points to a failing at our universities which is quite fundamental.

The job of the university shouldn't be to "hire" the people with the best minds and ideas. It should be to serve as a host to such people and the students who want to learn from them. Or, more generally to host discourse.

That's one thing where I feel that our universities are falling well short of.

Most courses and lectures follow a fairly standard and repeated process. I see no reason why a classroom session cannot be video recorded, and offered as a low-cost medium of learning that can be viewed at the convenience of the student. The advantage is that the most talented lecturer of a particular subject can then reach the largest audience for the least amount of dollars spent. This could then be supplemented with live Q&A sessions with tutors or other teachers. The point would be to lower the number of lecturers needed and thus reduce the cost of education. Increasing the flexibility of when a lecture may be viewed also has the benefit of increasing the number of people able to fit it in their busy schedule, and allows them the opportunity to learn when they are most receptive to learning (avoiding early morning classes for example).

Paying for buildings, and electricity, and janitors, and food courts, and housing, and professors, etc, just to teach the same things over and over again seems like an incredible waste of resources.

Obviously there are some subjects that do not lend themselves to pre-recorded learning, but perhaps 80% of it does. I follow your logic of not drastically changing the way we educate people, but I disagree. Drastic changes will result in drastic benefits (for most fields of study, and certainly for most undergrad courses).

Which brings me to a question I've wondered about: ever since you left college, have you ever went to a university event (at any university) that was not sporting or arts/culture related?

I do not have a college education, but I can see the point you imply. The only university events I have ever participated in involved mass consumption of alcohol, shooting pool, socializing, etc.

rrc06

08-04-2010, 12:46 PM

I agree with the idea behind this column but, boy, the piece is riddled with inaccuracies, hyperboles and downright non-sense.

Are the figures that are quoted in that article nonsense? Has the costs of college really not outpaced healthcare (amazing that ANYTHING can do that) and the general rate of inflation?

ASG

08-04-2010, 12:53 PM

Well, actually, says the states.

Why do you think all these governors are crying for more washington money?
Because its an easier thing to do than raise taxes. Anyway, this topic is about professors, not public school teachers.

Neo Tocqueville

08-04-2010, 02:09 PM

Are the figures that are quoted in that article nonsense? Well, take the $200,000 college expense number. Average in-state tuition in public colleges is $7k/year and $11k for out-of-state. Even at private colleges, average tuition is $26k/year. Obviously, there're additional costs but clearly he's taking a high water mark and using it as some kind of average cost of tuition.

Has the costs of college really not outpaced healthcare (amazing that ANYTHING can do that) and the general rate of inflation? It has and, as we've talked about here, that is indeed alarming.

As I said, I agree with the idea behind his article, i.e., the rising college costs are starting to make less and less sense, but the analysis is pretty far off.

Another thing which he barely acknowledges is that college education from a good institution is, even in its current less-than-ideal form, more than a professional training. Harvard education, for all its flaws, is still something young people ought to strive for. It shouldn't be the ONLY goal, but a goal nonetheless for a lot of kids.

LLCL

08-04-2010, 07:29 PM

Most courses and lectures follow a fairly standard and repeated process. I see no reason why a classroom session cannot be video recorded, and offered as a low-cost medium of learning that can be viewed at the convenience of the student. The advantage is that the most talented lecturer of a particular subject can then reach the largest audience for the least amount of dollars spent.

You mean something like online courses? Many colleges already offer those, my husband is currently working on his master's degree completely online. He has never set foot in a B&M college building (except for a handful of proctored exams). I agree that it's a very efficient way to keep costs down and reach a large amount of students. Problem is, his online courses are more expensive than on campus college courses at the same college. Contradicts that theory, doesn't it? (Fortunately my husband's employer picks up most of the tab.)
In addition it doesn't seem like the professors appreciate that online students are generally "non-traditional" students. If my husband could sit in a classroom all day with a bunch of twenty somethings, he could have just taken "normal" college courses. Instead he works long and odd hours and has a family he wants to spend time with. The time spent driving back and forth to a campus could be time spent with his kids.
Nevertheless, the majority of his professors set the same deadlines for the online students as the campus students. There are a few professors who understand the dynamics of online students, they're the ones who hand out weekly assignments. If a packet's handed out on Monday and due Sunday at midnight, it levels the playing field.

So, theoretically I agree with you, in practice the academic world has a long way to go before it'll work.
I also have three teenage sons, the oldest is a sophomore in highschool this year. We've talked about his college options, not going isn't an option. While their dad managed to work his way up the ladder in the company he started working for when he was 19, that's not something we want our kids to count on. My oldest son will likely join the military to get a college education, same thing for my middle son, the youngest has a very high IQ and at 13 already has some highschool credits. He should be able to get a scholarship anywhere he wants to go. We've made it very clear to our kids that going deeply into debt to obtain a degree isn't a smart choice.

rrc06

08-04-2010, 08:11 PM

Harvard education, for all its flaws, is still something young people ought to strive for. It shouldn't be the ONLY goal, but a goal nonetheless for a lot of kids.

I disagree. There are plenty of good options out there besides Harvard. It's unrealistic for every kid in america to strive to attend a school that probably takes in a couple thousand kids or less into its inaugural class each year.

What about the UC system, U Michigan, UNC, UVa, or even good ol' U Florida :P There are number of public "ivys" that provide a great education at a good price to a large number of students.

redpoint5

08-05-2010, 03:19 PM

You mean something like online courses?... Problem is, his online courses are more expensive than on campus college courses at the same college. Contradicts that theory, doesn't it?

That is exactly what I'm getting at. The colleges subsidize other programs by jacking up the tuition rates for online courses. How can it possibly cost more for me to not occupy a room, consume fewer instructor hours, not use facilities (bathroom, libraries, drinking fountains...), not heat a room, not light a room, etc...

Established schools are a force of nature, and I don't think they have any motivation to change they way they educate. It will take entirely new schools and new ways of thinking for more efficient environments for learning to pop up.

We've made it very clear to our kids that going deeply into debt to obtain a degree isn't a smart choice.

Probably wise teaching. As much as I hate school, it could be a wise investment to go deeply in debt to attend a prestigious school for someone that has a specific career field in mind, and the ability to excel.

rrc06

09-01-2010, 07:29 PM

College tuition costs have even outpaced healthcare costs over the last decade :shake:

When Will The College Tuition Bubble Burst? (http://consumerist.com/2010/09/when-will-the-college-tuition-bubble-burst.html)

http://consumerist.com/tuitionvshomeprices.jpg

This is a chart from the Carpe Diem blog showing the increase in college education costs, U.S home prices, and the consumer price index. If we had a housing bubble, the skyrocketing costs of higher education is a super bubble.

How did we get here? There's no way the value of that education has kept track with its price.

Well, private lenders are part of the story.

Private lenders cropped up marketing easy credit to students, while at the same time giving kickbacks to schools that shuttle students to these private lenders. The more these schools raised rates, the more students turned to the private lenders, and the profits for the school and the lender kept rising.

Obviously this isn't the case at all universities, but it is at enough. Remember the big settlements Andrew Cuomo got from NYU and U Penn over accepting kickbacks from Citibank? You know that if those guys were caught, there were many more out there doing the same.

"It's a story of an industry that may sound familiar. The buyers think what they're buying will appreciate in value, making them rich in the future. The product grows more and more elaborate, and more and more expensive, but the expense is offset by cheap credit provided by sellers eager to encourage buyers to buy.

Buyers see that everyone else is taking on mounds of debt, and so are more comfortable when they do so themselves; besides, for a generation, the value of what they're buying has gone up steadily. What could go wrong? Everything continues smoothly until, at some point, it doesn't.

Yes, this sounds like the housing bubble, but I'm afraid it's also sounding a lot like a still-inflating higher education bubble. And despite (or because of) the fact that my day job involves higher education, I think it's better for us to face up to what's going on before the bubble bursts messily."

Krazen1211

09-01-2010, 08:04 PM

The private tuition bubble cannot burst as long as the government irrationally seeks to expand enrollment in college and continues to fuel it with taxpayer $.

theflintseeker

09-01-2010, 09:34 PM

The private tuition bubble cannot burst as long as the government irrationally seeks to expand enrollment in college and continues to fuel it with taxpayer $.

Obama's new GI bill (http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/obama-ends-oval-office-address-calling-new-gi-bill) will also increase demand for enrollment.

lemontart68

09-01-2010, 11:22 PM

So very true, I actually told my children this about college and my son at 23 has a good job and no debt whatsoever. None. Benefits galore, decent pay and no college degree.

lemontart68

09-01-2010, 11:57 PM

Wow, this thread is really interesting.

I'm in this boat right now. 24 years old with my own company that's doing great but also going to community college. I'm at the point where I'm asking myself if college is even worth it. Working so much that I have already had to drop 3 classes this year, but the upside is that my work has allowed me to make a huge chunk of money, saved 22k since march of this year. I'll probably have 30-40k saved up by the end of this year, which is crazy for someone of my background/age.

I'm pretty damn sure if I applied that time I spent on school improving my company it would be a better use of my time. On the other hand my family was so happy when I decided to enroll in college that dropping out would probably break their hearts.

It also seems like college right now is flooded with people, I can barely find a parking spot at the school I go to. Seems to be a shelter from the rain for a lot of people at the moment. I'm pretty close to getting my associates so I'll probably finish that up and re-evaluate my situation. With all this stuff going on I pretty much live off of Red Bulls and rarely get good sleep. Sitting at a 3.6 GPA while barely applying myself, but it is a community college so that doesn't say much.

When I enrolled at 22 all I was doing was smoking weed and playing video games all day, so as I said my family was really happy. It really put a positive spin on my life, which is great. Pretty conflicted on what to do, as I said my family is what's keeping me going on the school front.

I've been up since 10 am yesterday (21st), and it's 7 am now, about to pull another +24 hour day with no sleep. To put it into perspective.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, when I do retire, all I am looking forward to is smoking weed and playing video games all day... lol..

You are probably right, your time would be better spent on improving your company. It sounds like it is doing so well, great job.

My son is 23 and he is doing well with no college whatsoever. I actually didn't want him to go, because of the debt and I didn't think he would be any better off. He is very determined and hard working, as you seem to be as well. He did think about college but decided he didn't want to waste 4 years, he saw it as a pause in his life.

I told him on the day he turned 18, now you can tell me to go fly a kite. Isn't that great? ;) I don't want him spending any time whatsoever doing what I want him to do. He calls me and updates me on what is going on with his life...but that is what it is, his life. I hope I made sense. Go get em (sounds like you already are).

lemontart68

09-02-2010, 12:04 AM

lemontart68

09-02-2010, 12:16 AM

This problem starts way earlier than college. This problem starts with the public school system. When we are forcing every kids to be in school, we end up holding many of them back. You can have many 8th graders who have the same (or better) standing in academics than most 12th grader. Public schools became a daycare center long ago.

I only finished 6th grade in my former country and I was an average student. We only had school for half a day - they split schools into morning and afternoon sessions. I came here and started 8th grade - which I didn't do much because I couldn't speak English. I did not really start to understand school materials until the middle of 9th grade. By this time, I was taking all the basic courses. So in 10th and 11th grade I was playing catch up and I was able to make up for lost times and took all the courses which enabled me to sign up for all the advanced placement courses by 12th grade. If I did not do this, then I could still graduate but at a significantly lower standard.

The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers.

So true, great post. My kids would know next to nothing if I left it up to the school system all these years to teach them. The schools are not educating them but only making sure they are compliant little citizens of the state. Smash them into cookies that all look the same at graduation. Not only did I not rely upon the schools to teach them, I took the teachers to school, if you know what I mean.

By the way I love the quote you have in your sig, its great and needs to be said more often, thank you for it:

"Who cares what Fox news and the GOP said? GOP = DEM I can't state this any simpler. There is no difference between them. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can move on with your life." - SiloSmashers (smasher of ignorances)

DarthSaver

09-02-2010, 05:47 AM

Community College is where it's at. http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100418/GJNEWS_01/704189896/-1/FOSNEWS

Gives the young person a chance to "get their feet wet" in a smaller, MUCH less expensive environment and still be able to walk away with a degree after two years if they choose to end their education. Most college grads will be looking at entry level positions, especially in todays climate with so many highly skilled, experienced folks on the unemployment line. I think employers will be looking at CC graduates more closely for these positions, knowing that they potential employee won't be facing $100k or more in debt and only use their employment as a stepping stone and leave in a short amount of time. CC graduates don't have as much of a burden straight out of school, yet still have the basic skills most employers would need for these entry level positions. If the potential employee can be looked at as long term, growing into the company rather than leaving in a year or two, it is much easier for the employer to hire them. It is basically a sign of the times and it appears that the phrase too much is never enough may not apply to college education and todays workforce.

ASG

09-02-2010, 05:55 AM

DarthSaver

09-02-2010, 07:12 AM

Why do you think CC graduates would not want to (or be less likely to) move on after getting their experience at their first entry level job? Do you believe they have less ambition?

Naturally some will still move on. My main point was that they will have much less financial burden and thus would not feel pressured to move on as quickly. As I said, most graduates today whether 2 or 4 years are looking at entry level positions, most likely in fields that they didn't even pursue their education in. There are just simply too many qualified, overqualified unemployed workers available with much more experience than the college grad. As an employer offering entry level positions, I would definitely take into consideration how much training I am going to have to invest in a new employee and how willing I feel they may be to stay in that position short term and then advance in my company over the next 5+ years. Face it, most people who have been in the workforce for some time and accumulated debt simply couldn't work at let's say (examples) Burger King or McD's for long. Temporary, maybe, but not long term whereas someone new to the workforce with much less debt and pressure could stay in those positions longer and be willing to wait out their chance at advancement. There are always exceptions but I see that overall trend continuing for quite some time with real unemployment near 16% and prospects of reaching pre-recession employment numbers within the next 10 years looking quite slim.

ASG

09-02-2010, 08:45 AM

If you're saying BK or McD's, you're referring to overqualified employees vs how much debt they have.

I guess I just disagree with the premise. I think people move on or try to get raises when they can, not when the amount of debt they have says they have to.

DarthSaver

09-02-2010, 01:15 PM

I guess I just disagree with the premise. I think people move on or try to get raises when they can, not when the amount of debt they have says they have to.

Think about the two grads entering todays workforce. One has $20k in debt from a 2 year community college and the other has racked up $100k at a 4 year institution. Which one will be more likely to stay at an entry level position longer? It seems pretty clear to me. As an employer, I would probably not hire the 4 year grad with a better degree for the same position because ultimately that employee will be less satisfied with working their way up because of the tremendous debt they have incurred and most likely will be job hunting the day after they start working for me, or worse, working a second or even third job to pay the bills. Remember, I am talking about entry level positions that most every employer has, not just BK or McD's(that is why I made it clear it was an example). The same concept as to why you don't hire lawyers to be janitors. They may need the work short term, but as an employer I have to look at the long term. I certainly don't go into the hiring process hoping the person I am interviewing will leave the company within a few months after being trained. It is just a waste of my time and the companies.

ASG

09-02-2010, 01:56 PM

Think about the two grads entering todays workforce. One has $20k in debt from a 2 year community college and the other has racked up $100k at a 4 year institution. Which one will be more likely to stay at an entry level position longer? It seems pretty clear to me. As an employer, I would probably not hire the 4 year grad with a better degree for the same position because ultimately that employee will be less satisfied with working their way up because of the tremendous debt they have incurred and most likely will be job hunting the day after they start working for me, or worse, working a second or even third job to pay the bills. Remember, I am talking about entry level positions that most every employer has, not just BK or McD's(that is why I made it clear it was an example). The same concept as to why you don't hire lawyers to be janitors. They may need the work short term, but as an employer I have to look at the long term. I certainly don't go into the hiring process hoping the person I am interviewing will leave the company within a few months after being trained. It is just a waste of my time and the companies.
You're combining 2 different things. First you say the 4 year grad will be looking for a job sooner because they are more motivated (or as I said, more ambitious). Then you once again talk about jobs where the 4 year guy is overqualified and the job isn't an entry level job, its a "filler" job to pay the bills while they are trying to get their "real job."

Xygonn

09-02-2010, 02:07 PM

I think the major point is that it is stupid to get a BA or a BS in a B.S. science if you are going to college for economic reasons. If you just love history/literature/art/philosophy and dream of being a professor, go for that dream (but expect to be poor).

DarthSaver

09-02-2010, 05:51 PM

You're combining 2 different things. First you say the 4 year grad will be looking for a job sooner because they are more motivated (or as I said, more ambitious). Then you once again talk about jobs where the 4 year guy is overqualified and the job isn't an entry level job, its a "filler" job to pay the bills while they are trying to get their "real job."

Again, as an employer, I am looking at it as a matter of who will stay at the position I have available the longest. Yes, it costs time which translates to real dollars to train a new employee, even for an entry level position. There are scores of folks on the unemployment line already with vastly more experience than a new grad to fill the "real jobs". My point is, once again, that in todays economy and jobless climate, it doesn't make sense from the students end to burden themselves with debt that requires a "real job" that 200 folks with more experience are waiting to fill and it certainly doesn't make sense from the employers end to hire an employee that has that burden and will most likely either need to work two jobs or be constantly looking to leave because they are either just squeaking by or sinking further into debt by staying at that position. I'm sorry but as an employer I have to look out for my interests and bottom line and constantly training new staff does not make good fiscal sense.

rrc06

09-02-2010, 07:00 PM

Student Loans, Gateway Drug To Debt Slavery (http://consumerist.com/2010/09/student-loans-gateway-drug-to-debt-slavery.html)

http://consumerist.com/studentloanscheme2.jpg

ASG

09-02-2010, 07:09 PM

Again, as an employer, I am looking at it as a matter of who will stay at the position I have available the longest. Yes, it costs time which translates to real dollars to train a new employee, even for an entry level position. There are scores of folks on the unemployment line already with vastly more experience than a new grad to fill the "real jobs". My point is, once again, that in todays economy and jobless climate, it doesn't make sense from the students end to burden themselves with debt that requires a "real job" that 200 folks with more experience are waiting to fill and it certainly doesn't make sense from the employers end to hire an employee that has that burden and will most likely either need to work two jobs or be constantly looking to leave because they are either just squeaking by or sinking further into debt by staying at that position. I'm sorry but as an employer I have to look out for my interests and bottom line and constantly training new staff does not make good fiscal sense.
So you're not talking about entry level jobs, you're talking about jobs where you just need a warm body. The whole point of entry level jobs for a college graduate is it involves the knowledge you got in college and you are looking to move up in the field once you get the experience.

cruizerfish

09-08-2010, 09:33 AM

Student loan clock ticks past $850 Billion:

http://www.finaid.org/loans/studentloandebtclock.phtml

Krazen1211

09-09-2010, 07:57 AM

So you're not talking about entry level jobs, you're talking about jobs where you just need a warm body. The whole point of entry level jobs for a college graduate is it involves the knowledge you got in college and you are looking to move up in the field once you get the experience.

The problem is the knowledge acquired at college is often useless.

College used to be composed of only the best and brightest of individuals, so 100 years ago you knew you were getting someone smart, at least. Nowadays, since politicians want everyone to go to college, it no longer holds that distinction.

ASG

09-09-2010, 08:36 AM

The problem is the knowledge acquired at college is often useless.

College used to be composed of only the best and brightest of individuals, so 100 years ago you knew you were getting someone smart, at least. Nowadays, since politicians want everyone to go to college, it no longer holds that distinction.
Whether or not you need the college knowledge to do the job is a separate argument from whether you'd hire a 2-year Jr college grad over a 4-year college grad.

Krazen1211

09-09-2010, 09:36 AM

Whether or not you need the college knowledge to do the job is a separate argument from whether you'd hire a 2-year Jr college grad over a 4-year college grad.

That's true, because college functions as a weed out process. The thinking is that kids who are incapable of completing a 4 year degree are likely to be incapable of other things.

If everyone passes through the weed out, it ceases to be a weed out process, and becomes useless.

redpoint5

09-09-2010, 04:34 PM

That's true, because college functions as a weed out process. The thinking is that kids who are incapable of completing a 4 year degree are likely to be incapable of other things.

If everyone passes through the weed out, it ceases to be a weed out process, and becomes useless.

Exactly. Perhaps a degree from certain schools means something, but in most cases it means you have borrowed enough money to get a diploma.

jammer

09-09-2010, 04:36 PM

Student Loans, Gateway Drug To Debt Slavery (http://consumerist.com/2010/09/student-loans-gateway-drug-to-debt-slavery.html)

http://consumerist.com/studentloanscheme2.jpg

Are you trying to say something, or are you just letting a picture be worth 1000 words?

rrc06

09-09-2010, 05:04 PM

Are you trying to say something, or are you just letting a picture be worth 1000 words?

the picture speaks for itself...

jammer

09-10-2010, 09:32 AM

the picture speaks for itself...

So your picture scenario makes some sense if people don't pay their bills on time? What about everyone else who does pay on time.

Xygonn

09-10-2010, 09:56 AM

The point being that the government is basically double dipping in student loans, and with the new healthcare bill they have expanded their control in student loans. They hold the original debt, pay themselves the full face value and then send themselves as the collections agency to get the full face value plus 25% plus default interest. No way a private company could get away with operating this way.

rrc06

09-10-2010, 10:07 AM

So your picture scenario makes some sense if people don't pay their bills on time? What about everyone else who does pay on time.

it doesn't matter if their worthless bachelor's degree does not afford them enough of a salary to make the payments.

jammer

09-10-2010, 10:13 AM

it doesn't matter if their worthless bachelor's degree does not afford them enough of a salary to make the payments.

Yeah, that's why you don't get a worthless bachelor's degree. Get a bachelor's degree in engineering or geology so you can make $50k+ out of college. People should look at all of their potential job choices for whatever degree they are interested in and make sure that they will be able to pay their bills. Don't go to a fancy school to get a degree in communications. Actually, don't get a degree in communications and don't go to a fancy school when you only need to go to a state university.

rrc06

09-10-2010, 11:55 AM

Yeah, that's why you don't get a worthless bachelor's degree. Get a bachelor's degree in engineering or geology so you can make $50k+ out of college. People should look at all of their potential job choices for whatever degree they are interested in and make sure that they will be able to pay their bills. Don't go to a fancy school to get a degree in communications. Actually, don't get a degree in communications and don't go to a fancy school when you only need to go to a state university.

The average college grad doesn't seem to be doing that.... hence the presence of this thread. Moreover, an entire for-profit industry has sprung up trying to sell the value of any degree you can get.

Krazen1211

09-10-2010, 03:25 PM

The average college grad doesn't seem to be doing that.... hence the presence of this thread. Moreover, an entire for-profit industry has sprung up trying to sell the value of any degree you can get.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

jammer

09-10-2010, 03:35 PM

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Nice quote.

wanderingwillow

09-10-2010, 05:21 PM

A fool and his money are soon parted.
Yeah...
But it in this case, it might be 'our' money, since such a large amount of people default from these 'commercial' colleges..

rrc06

10-28-2010, 05:09 AM

Healthcare inflation has nothing on this. Looks like state budget subsidies aren't hiding the price of public education for much longer....

Rise in college costs hits public schools hardest (http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/28/pf/college/college_tuition/index.htm?hpt=T2)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- While heading to a private college is still more expensive than going to a state school, the price gap is narrowing: Tuition and fees are climbing at a faster pace at public schools than their private brethren.

For the school year 2010-11, in-state tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities rose to $7,605, up 7.9% from a year ago, the College Board reported Thursday. At private four-year institutions, the average cost rose 4.5% to $27,293.

Dwindling state budgets are sparking the hikes at public colleges. Over the past decade, public school tuition has risen at an annual rate of 5.6% vs. 3% at private schools.

"Prices are continuing to rise more rapidly than the rate of inflation, particularly in the public sector," said Sandy Baum, independent policy analyst at the College Board. "Public colleges and universities are getting less money from the states because the states just don't have money to give them."

redpoint5

10-28-2010, 09:48 AM

Maybe this will lower demand by keeping those that have little to gain by paying for college, from attending. Hopefully then a bachelors degree will mean something.

rrc06

12-01-2010, 06:31 AM

No surprises here....

Fancy Colleges Don't Matter (http://consumerist.com/2010/11/fancy-colleges-dont-matter.html#comments-content)

Smart and ambitious students should go to community college and state school, and save their money for funding their dreams. At least that's one way to look at a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found going to a college where kids have higher SAT scores doesn't result in more money after they graduate.

In fact, those students who submitted apps for several big time schools, but were either rejected or decided not to go, ended up earning more money on average than those kids who actually went to those schools.

In conclusion, the researchers said that, "evidently, students' motivation, ambition and desire to learn have a much stronger effect on their subsequent success than average academic ability of their classmates."

Score one for the bootstraps.

Foreveryours

12-01-2010, 11:44 PM

No surprises here....

Fancy Colleges Don't Matter (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://consumerist.com/2010/11/fancy-colleges-dont-matter.html#comments-content)
I'm not surprised either, but probably for different reasons. IMHO, primary benefit for attending a "name" school is for the networking opportunities. And just because you're there does not guarantee that, you would have to have the right personality.

rebat

12-02-2010, 12:13 AM

Reminds me of this article

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/in-the-basement-of-the-ivory-tower/6810/

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower
The idea that a university education is for everyone is a destructive myth. An instructor at a “college of last resort” explains why.

There is a sense that the American workforce needs to be more professional at every level. Many jobs that never before required college now call for at least some post-secondary course work. School custodians, those who run the boilers and spread synthetic sawdust on vomit, may not need college—but the people who supervise them, who decide which brand of synthetic sawdust to procure, probably do. There is a sense that our bank tellers should be college educated, and so should our medical-billing techs, and our child-welfare officers, and our sheriffs and federal marshals. We want the police officer who stops the car with the broken taillight to have a nodding acquaintance with great literature. And when all is said and done, my personal economic interest in booming college enrollments aside, I don’t think that’s such a boneheaded idea.

rrc06

12-02-2010, 05:59 AM

I'm not surprised either, but probably for different reasons. IMHO, primary benefit for attending a "name" school is for the networking opportunities. And just because you're there does not guarantee that, you would have to have the right personality.

and networking gets you a lot farther in law and business than it does in other fields IMO

SiliconJon

12-03-2010, 11:35 AM

You know what you get when anyone can get a degree? A lot of inept people with degrees.

You know what you get when a lot of inept people have degrees? A worthless degree.

You know what you get when the degree is worthless? A lot of undeserved arrogance.

You know what you get with a lot of arrogance atop inept people taken as authorities due to their worthless/meaningless degress? Disasters everywhere.

SlickEnW

12-03-2010, 12:39 PM

You know what you get with a lot of arrogance atop inept people taken as authorities due to their worthless/meaningless degress? Disasters everywhere.

Yeah but it makes it easier to cut a pile of resumes down to 1/4-1/2.

Xygonn

12-03-2010, 01:26 PM

You know what you get with a lot of arrogance atop inept people taken as authorities due to their worthless/meaningless degress?

A lot of fry-o-later operations experts?

redpoint5

12-03-2010, 02:10 PM

Yeah but it makes it easier to cut a pile of resumes down to 1/4-1/2.

That pile is usually cut down to just a couple resumes by knowing somebody. At that point it doesn't matter what's in the resume.

It really depends on what the job is, and the specific people that are doing the hiring. In my line of work, a degree will never be much of an asset. Networking really seems to be the most important thing for most career fields, however.

Umm2three

12-04-2010, 06:13 PM

I believe that there is a way to study college courses at home and get college credit for it. That could be one way to save money

bigpimpatl

12-05-2010, 09:07 PM

I believe that there is a way to study college courses at home and get college credit for it. That could be one way to save money

Although a great idea and I hope will happen, the government will never let it happen. It's up to private institutions to lead the way.

Deusxmachina

12-05-2010, 10:53 PM

There was the big stink in the news last month about an almost entire class cheating on a test and the prof failing all of them or something. Many of the students interviewed said, "It's no big deal... everyone in college cheats. Everyone does it." It could be called "the grade-point inflation," I guess.

Meanwhile, I was talking to a 20-something with a four-year degree in criminology who would take a job Anywhere right now. He's applied at Walmart and everywhere else. This is a personable, well-spoken guy who Wants to work, whatever it may be. He gets turned down for being over-qualified. He is considering leaving his degree off any applications from now on, but then if he gets asked how far he got in school and doesn't say, he'd be lying.

Doctor_Wu

12-06-2010, 07:35 AM

He is considering leaving his degree off any applications from now on, but then if he gets asked how far he got in school and doesn't say, he'd be lying.

It's called prudence, and sometimes it's necessary. I would encourage him to leave off his degree if he is going for an entry level job. Head hunters will tell you to come up with multiple resumes to woo different types of employers.

rrc06

01-20-2011, 02:01 PM

Study: Many Students Learn Little In College (http://consumerist.com/2011/01/study-many-students-learn-little-in-college.html)

A significant chunk of students who seek higher education are just spending a bunch of money to spin their wheels, according to new research that finds many are hardly learning anything.

ABC News reports findings in the book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses that say 45 percent of 2,300 students surveyed showed no significant development in reading, writing or critical thinking by the end of their sophomore years. The authors are professors at NYU and Virginia.

The coursework seems to be on the light side as well. The study found half of students didn't take a course that required 20 pages of writing in the previous semester, and a third didn't take a class that required 40 pages of reading a week.

Doctor_Wu

01-20-2011, 02:43 PM

Study: Many Students Learn Little In College (http://consumerist.com/2011/01/study-many-students-learn-little-in-college.html)

A quote from the ABC News article on the subject ... "Phil Hampton, a UCLA spokesman, said the university offers a rigorous and well-rounded curriculum led by faculty committed to student learning, and pointed to a study that showed high student satisfaction with their experience."

This begs the question of students knowing what they need. They may very well be satisfied with the "experience" most people may actually prefer to not be challenged much. My sense of things is that America has come to view a College degree as a necessary piece of paper, but not something more than that. It's seen largely as a hurdle to overcome, as something one must do or get past, not a process of enrichment.

Another quote - "So what to do? The report warns that federally mandated fixes similar to "No Child Left Behind" in K-12 education would be "counterproductive," in part because researchers are still learning how to measure learning".

Have they measured their own learning on the subject of measuring learning? Oh my... what a question... can learning be measured? Our society seems to say yes, and our reliance on standardized tests is testimony to that belief. And while we can measure someone's ability to regurgitate a string of facts, or solve a math problem, have we really captured their ability to reason well?

As was said in another thread here in recent days, engineers and chemists do learn things, tangible things. Marketable things. And those degrees do pay for themselves. Do they learn how to reason well, or read great works of art for deep meaning, probably not. So while they learn something tangible, does the understanding of "method" suggest that this person is 'educated'... to many people it does, but again I say no.

Neo Tocqueville

01-20-2011, 05:39 PM

As was said in another thread here in recent days, engineers and chemists do learn things, tangible things. Marketable things. And those degrees do pay for themselves. Do they learn how to reason well, or read great works of art for deep meaning, probably not. So while they learn something tangible, does the understanding of "method" suggest that this person is 'educated'... to many people it does, but again I say no.

A few months ago, I met Ken Robinson (http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html) at an event. I thought, here's a smart guy who knows a thing or two about education, so I asked him: 'who is an educated person?'

He said that education should serve three purposes: First is personal: it should make you realize who you are (know thyself), what your unique talents and abilities are, and provide you a pathway to nurture those. Second is cultural. An educated person should know his cultural identity, where he comes from, he should be 'at home' with all that's valuable in that culture and he should be tolerant of other cultures. Third, he said is financial. Education should make you financially free and secure because financial insecurity can wreck havoc in people's lives.

I thought the answer was good. It was probably what the BoT of every university would say 'yes' to. But, the trouble with our college education today is that the values that the BoT (a.k.a., 'the society') believes in and wants to convey though the education system basically terminate at the President level. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of curricular design and course design and lecture design, nothing from that high-mindedness trickles down.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not as if people within the food chain of "higher" education don't realize that the sole purpose of education cannot be financial, it's just that the education system itself has lost the ability to translate it's own stated mission into action.

Doctor_Wu

01-20-2011, 09:40 PM

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not as if people within the food chain of "higher" education don't realize that the sole purpose of education cannot be financial, it's just that the education system itself has lost the ability to translate it's own stated mission into action.

Well, it has lost the ability to defend the idea of education for its own sake, b/c it has in some areas it has turned itself into a trade school. Does an engineer need to know what lessons one may draw from Hamlet? Not to be a good engineer he doesn't.

Much was lost when the universities abandoned the core curriculum of great books. When that was a prerequisite it was understood to provide the foundation of an educated human... but since that has been lost, it is not even something that is recognized as containing any wisdom, or anything of transcendent value. Our connection to it is so distant that people don't even know what they are missing. I would even say that most academics do not posses a decent exposure to the humanities.

Xygonn

01-21-2011, 09:48 AM

Well, it has lost the ability to defend the idea of education for its own sake, b/c it has in some areas it has turned itself into a trade school. Does an engineer need to know what lessons one may draw from Hamlet? Not to be a good engineer he doesn't.

Much was lost when the universities abandoned the core curriculum of great books. When that was a prerequisite it was understood to provide the foundation of an educated human... but since that has been lost, it is not even something that is recognized as containing any wisdom, or anything of transcendent value. Our connection to it is so distant that people don't even know what they are missing. I would even say that most academics do not posses a decent exposure to the humanities.

In my undergraduate coursework, I took several required humanities courses. I was only a couple of classes away from an anthropology minor. In particular I took a keen interest in a class entitled, "The Evolution of Man, Society, and Technology". I did take an intro to literature course, where we read some of the greats, but most of that was actually done in high school. I took a world history, and US history course. I also took a couple of philosophy courses. These were all part of the prerequisites at my school. I enjoyed them and looking back on it, do find them to be valuable.

EscapeVelo

01-21-2011, 09:59 AM

Everybody sent to college. College dumbed down to accomodate them. Nobody wants to be charged with racism and sexism, so the the dumbed down courses allow all to participate equitably.

Self esteem and social engineering trumped educational excellence and rigorous studies.

This was pushed by the 60s New Left, and they have been very successful. Unfortunately its been a losing proposition for Western Civilization.

Instead of lifting all students to their potential, the education system is used to equalize students from different backrounds and potentials. Money is thrown at the poor performers as the cirricula is dumbed down and those with more potential simply breeze by on the dumbed down cirricula.

The damage that the New Left Baby Boomer 60s has done to Western Civilization is incalcuable.

Lessor female and dark skinned authors are promoted in English and Literature classes, due to sex and race political concerns. The Western Canon is eviscerated. A Civilization being destroyed.

EscapeVelo

01-21-2011, 10:04 AM

We have grievance politics studies departments, which prepare students to enter the political economy and compete for government grants to promote the interests of their particular groups. They are masters at wealth redistribution, but do not actually create wealth. They are merely dividing the wealth of Western Civilization to the destroyers of Western Civilization...as the whole thing unwinds in its death throws.

zzyzzx

01-21-2011, 10:45 AM

EscapeVelo

01-21-2011, 01:40 PM

Commentary from Michelle Rhee

Listen or read transcript on the link...via Marketplace

Education reform needs a new starting point (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/01/18/pm-a-successful-economy-begins-with-education/)

We've lost our competitive spirit. We've become so obsessed with making kids feel good about themselves that we've lost sight of building the skills they need to actually be good at things.

I can see it in my own household. I have two girls, 8 and 12, and they play soccer. And I can tell you that they suck at soccer! They take after their mother in athletic ability. But if you were to see their rooms, they're adorned with ribbons, medals and trophies. You'd think I was raising the next Mia Hamm.

continued...