Student debt the new deal breaker for marriage?

[MannyIsGod]

Baseline, as I remember it, it was the full freshman year and they capped it at 15 without special permission after that.

I'm capped at 18 before I have to see an adviser. I had to talk to a bunch of incoming freshman and look at their schedules to hand out vouchers for a program I'm a part of here at school and I can say the vast majority of them were enrolled in 15+ hours.

Schools are trying to get people out the door faster - they certainly aren't trying to slow it down. I know that the Texas leg actually passed some good overhauls that charge people more when they exceed a certain amount of hours without graduating and if they drop a class and take it more than once. People taking a long time are a big deal and there has been a concerted effort system wide in order to get them out the door.

I know here at UNM they constantly remind you it costs the same to take 12 hours as it does to take 18. After 18 they do start charging you a bit more by the hour but they definitely do not want people taking the minimum.

[MannyIsGod]

Agreed. Universities are really shooting themselves in the foot though; they're killing the goose to get the golden egg now.

Schools are raising prices because the cost of educating people is not cheap and there are a lot more people enrolling now than ever before. Its actually picture perfect supply and demand.

Its damn important to remember that the vast majority of schools are NONPROFIT. They're certainly not raising prices in some effort to make money.

[boutons_deux]

"Schools are raising prices because ..."

... because they can. Universities are run like for-profit business with very expensive mid/upper employees grabbing of salaries/perks, rather than as non-profit educational ins utions.

[coyotes_geek]

Forgiving the student loan debt of all Americans will have an immediate stimulative effect on our economy. With the stroke of the President's pen, millions of Americans would suddenly have hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of extra dollars in their pockets each and every month with which to spend on ailing sectors of the economy. As consumer spending increases, businesses will begin to hire, jobs will be created and a new era of innovation, entrepreneurship and prosperity will be ushered in for all. A rising tide does, in fact, lift all boats - forgiving student loan debt, rather than tax cuts for corporations, millionaires and billionaires, has a MUCH greater chance of helping to rise that tide in a MUCH shorter time-frame. The future economic success of this country is wholly dependent upon a well-educated, prosperous middle class. Instead of saddling entire generations with debt from which there is no escape, let's empower the American people to grow this economy on their own!

http://signon.org/sign/want%2Da%2Dre...330971-iDKyNkx

What an absolutely ty idea. There's $1 trillion of student loan debt out there. Care to take a guess who ends up getting to eat that sandwich when we "forgive" it?

[MannyIsGod]

People should just pay their damn debt. I don't see it as a huge problem but the idea that you're somehow en led to walk through life without having to pay for anything really pisses me off.

[LnGrrrR]

Schools are raising prices because the cost of educating people is not cheap and there are a lot more people enrolling now than ever before. Its actually picture perfect supply and demand.

Its damn important to remember that the vast majority of schools are NONPROFIT. They're certainly not raising prices in some effort to make money.

They may be "non-profit" in the sense that people aren't pocketing more money, but I'm sure that extra money is being put to use to purchase more facility space, hire better teachers, etc etc.

My point is that eventually, people won't be able to afford these schools, and then the schools that kept raising tuition in order to fund these bigger/better facilities in order to attract better students are going to be screwed.

Sure, some schools raise prices in order to compete with inflation. But the inflation of a college degree has seemingly raised far more than average inflation. Where's all that extra money going, and what will happen when that extra money isn't there?

[CosmicCowboy]

The ones that blow me away are these idiots that go to ITT Tech for a "computer" degree (because it is quick and easy and uhhh I like to play video games) and end up after two years with a totally worthless piece of paper and $30,000 in debt.

[Drachen]

The ones that blow me away are these idiots that go to ITT Tech for a "computer" degree (because it is quick and easy and uhhh I like to play video games) and end up after two years with a totally worthless piece of paper and $30,000 in debt.

(pssst. it's more than that.)

[MannyIsGod]

They may be "non-profit" in the sense that people aren't pocketing more money, but I'm sure that extra money is being put to use to purchase more facility space, hire better teachers, etc etc.

My point is that eventually, people won't be able to afford these schools, and then the schools that kept raising tuition in order to fund these bigger/better facilities in order to attract better students are going to be screwed.

Sure, some schools raise prices in order to compete with inflation. But the inflation of a college degree has seemingly raised far more than average inflation. Where's all that extra money going, and what will happen when that extra money isn't there?

So, before the 70s less than half of HS graduates went to college. Now its closer to 70%. With 70%, you also have an increase in population to factor in. We've added about 100,000 million people since then. Now obviously not all of those are going to be of the age to go to school but I think you get the point I"m trying to make.

I think you're seeing now a point where people will start getting priced out. Thats not a good thing, though. I don't see why that is a desirable outcome. The reality is that higher ed as a business that relies on profitability to stay viable is going to be available for a much smaller segment of our population than the current system and there is no way that is a better outcome for our country.

[MannyIsGod]

The ones that blow me away are these idiots that go to ITT Tech for a "computer" degree (because it is quick and easy and uhhh I like to play video games) and end up after two years with a totally worthless piece of paper and $30,000 in debt.

For profit schools. Its not different than the UofPheonix, Devry etc etc. People who do that are making huge mistakes - for the most part. I know there are exceptions and we've gone over that in the past here.

[MannyIsGod]

LNG, even if you look at a no frills school like SAC you will see that tuition rates have skyrocketed. And that isn't because SAC is somehow splurging on things. For the most part new facilities are typically not paid for by tuition but through bonds. Secondly, parts of SAC are falling apart.

Providing an education - like everything else - has seen its price go up incredibly.

[LnGrrrR]

So, before the 70s less than half of HS graduates went to college. Now its closer to 70%. With 70%, you also have an increase in population to factor in. We've added about 100,000 million people since then. Now obviously not all of those are going to be of the age to go to school but I think you get the point I"m trying to make.

I don't think that quite explains the rapid inflation though. If they have more people going, they should have more funds to build new buildings, hire more people, etc etc. I could understand some inflation, but not at the pace it is.

I think you're seeing now a point where people will start getting priced out. Thats not a good thing, though. I don't see why that is a desirable outcome. The reality is that higher ed as a business that relies on profitability to stay viable is going to be available for a much smaller segment of our population than the current system and there is no way that is a better outcome for our country.

I don't think it's desirable either; but the way it's going, there's no alternatives. Something will break along the way, we just don't know what yet.

[boutons_deux]

"has seen its price go up incredibly."

with inflation insignificant for many years, what costs have skyrocketed?

[MannyIsGod]

Whats changed? Well for one tax payers provide a lot less per student now than they did in the past. Take a look at the increases for private ins utions. They're much higher than that of public schools.

[CosmicCowboy]

I was talking to my sister this weekend about the glut of over educated people in the job market. She does hiring for a big hospital chain and will get as many as 800 resumes (many with batchelor and even masters in various liberal arts degree plans) for jobs posted at $9 an hour.

[DarrinS]

People should just pay their damn debt. I don't see it as a huge problem but the idea that you're somehow en led to walk through life without having to pay for anything really pisses me off.

OK, who has hijacked Manny's account?

[coyotes_geek]

The first article has one of the worst head lines ever written considering it never at any point decides to tell you exactly how this would impact tax payers negatively. It basically says that private loans are bad for students. I agree with that but taxpayers are not on the hook for private loans.

The second article also does not really push your point, either. Yes, defaults on student loans have gone up in recent years but considering the levels of unemployment and general economic malaise this should not be a shock to anyone. Furthermore, the article points out that much of this increase is purely on the shoulders of for profit schools and that schools that are contributing to this will soon be cut out of being eligible for the loan programs because of their failure to graduate students that can actually pay off these loans. I've railed against for profit higher ed on this board before and this is why.

The figures in both of the articles are really very small. Default rates under 10% for private and public ins utions strike me as manageable and that shows that 9 out of 10 students are graduating and are able to make due. That certainly seems to be a point in favor of these loans being effective.

None of this info helps an assertion that students are graduating with "worthless" degrees and actually makes the case for the opposite.
irrelevant. I'm not sure anyone is happy about having to pay back large amounts of money for anything. That doesn't mean its not worth it. Anecdotal evidence of this sort is meaningless. Its not like me posting the bank account of a doctor and pointing out how student loans helped them is going to prove my point.



I never said otherwise. My point is that having open access that loans and general financial aid provide is important to a society. Of course there are going to be people who go into debt and would have been better off having never attended college. Considering the level of private lending to people who don't even need private loans (see your first article) that isn't a byproduct of our current system by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, considering the predatory lending practices that go on with private student loans this would only increase in the absence of government backed aid.

But more importantly, while there are people who come out worse I would argue that there are far more people who come out better because they had access to a college education that they would not have had otherwise. In the end the that is the point. I don't think its a stretch to argue that our countries education level would be lower were it not for federal aid and I do not think it is a stretch to argue that would have an incredibly bad impact. The way forward is not going to be through unskilled jobs. Thats been apparent for a couple of decades now. As it is, we're already suffering when it comes to graduating people in various professions (IE Engineers) when compared to other countries and falling further.

And really, its a tough case to make that the US doesn't reap the benefit from financial aid in tax dollars when you consider that a college graduate will make almost twice as much more as a high school graduate. Thats quite a bit more future tax revenue you see from the investment a country makes in order to get there. Not to mention that the investment gets paid back in nearly every case (even the defaults).

I agree with you about the perils of the for-profit colleges. My tolerance level of default rates differs than yours. But those are pretty much tangential points to my main concern about the taxpayers needing to be on the hook for backing all these loans. If the loans are performing then there's no need for the taxpayers to be backing them.

[DarrinS]

All the burns you could possibly have said...

and you don't point out that she spelled the word "Field" incorrectly?

lol. I didn't see that.

[MannyIsGod]

I was talking to my sister this weekend about the glut of over educated people in the job market. She does hiring for a big hospital chain and will get as many as 800 resumes (many with batchelor and even masters in various liberal arts degree plans) for jobs posted at $9 an hour.

When I was doing the hiring to fill my previous position I had lots of masters degrees in for a job that paid 13-16 dollars an hour. But, for the most part (with one or two exceptions) they were not degrees I thought were in huge demand. Think, Psych.

[DarrinS]

The good news: Baby Boomers are starting to retire and there should be a large demand to fill the jobs left in their wake. Not to mention the jobs needed to take care of that aging demographic.

The bad news: Baby Boomers are starting to retire and we'll be eaten alive by their medicare, medicaid, and SS payments.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree with you about the perils of the for-profit colleges. My tolerance level of default rates differs than yours. But those are pretty much tangential points to my main concern about the taxpayers needing to be on the hook for backing all these loans. If the loans are performing then there's no need for the taxpayers to be backing them.

I think your last point has some serious merit but considering the current situation regarding private student loans I'd rather puke before I see that happen.

I think even with loan performance being fairly good (AFAIK - maybe those default rates are considered super high? I'm no loan officer) I think there is reason for the government to be involved which boils down to student protection and open access. Maybe in the future that won't be the case.

[MannyIsGod]

The good news: Baby Boomers are starting to retire and there should be a large demand to fill the jobs left in their wake. Not to mention the jobs needed to take care of that aging demographic.

The bad news: Baby Boomers are starting to retire and we'll be eaten alive by their medicare, medicaid, and SS payments.

Yeah - lots of people are being sold degrees on the premise that retirees will open up a lot of new jobs. The economy is putting the brakes on that, though. For now, anyway.

[CosmicCowboy]

The good news: Baby Boomers are starting to retire and there should be a large demand to fill the jobs left in their wake. Not to mention the jobs needed to take care of that aging demographic.

The bad news: Baby Boomers are starting to retire and we'll be eaten alive by their medicare, medicaid, and SS payments.

The even worse news...a lot of baby boomers aren't financially able to retire and those jobs aren't going to open up, plus a lot of companies are downsizing by attrition as older BBoomers retire without filling those positions.

[boutons_deux]

Blame students for loan debt? Not so fast.

The Full Picture
The minimum wage in the United States has gone up 353% since 1970, and average incomes have gone up approximately 500%. In that same span, however, the cost of basic household goods has gone up 482%, the cost of a four year education has gone up 994%, and the cost of an average home has gone up 917%.

In other words, in the eyes of an average worker from 1970 compered to today, the prices at the grocery store have remained largely unchanged, but the cost of an education has roughly doubled (and it’s now required if you want to earn significant money, where it wasn’t in 1970) and the cost of a home has roughly doubled as well.

If you look at it through the eyes of a minimum wage earner from 1970 compared to today, the prices at the grocery store have gone up about 30%, the cost of education has roughly tripled, and the cost of a home has roughly tripled.

Is There A Solution?
Like it or not, students of today, you’re likely not going to be able to follow the path of your parents – and especially not the path of your grandparents. If you want to have a financially healthy life, you’re going to need to keep an eye on every dollar much more than they had to. The ability to sensibly manage your money and make smart buying choices is much more of a requirement than ever before.

Parents and grandparents of today, give those kids a break. They’ve got a much worse financial reality than you did when you walked out of school. They’re facing bigger housing costs, bigger education costs, and a bigger requirement to have that education than you ever did. Don’t compare the path they’re following to the one you’re following. It’s an unfair comparison all around.

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/...w/print/415730

[ploto]

I would argue sometimes its better just to take out the loans for the extra amount then work a job for a ty wage. In fact it may be cheaper just to take 6 extra hours from 12 to 18 and NOT work so that you can get done faster.

Some universities have even gone to a set tuition rate per semester (usually for 12 to 18 hours) instead of by-the-hour charges to encourage students to take a full load and graduate.

You also have to figure that each additional year you are there, tuition will go up.