If the student loan market seizes up, then less folks go to college, will the cost go down to attract students? (insurance, borrow)

[FarNorthDallas]

Just looking down the road here..... I mean I am not so sure student loans are a good thing. People often borrow way more than they should, than their careers can support. So is it so bad that they go away? Perhaps tuition will go down to attract students and people can go back to doing what I did - wait tables and pay for it with cash as you go.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by FarNorthDallas

Just looking down the road here..... I mean I am not so sure student loans are a good thing. People often borrow way more than they should, than their careers can support. So is it so bad that they go away? Perhaps tuition will go down to attract students and people can go back to doing what I did - wait tables and pay for it with cash as you go.

One can only hope, right?

[FarNorthDallas]

But the bailout will "save" student loans, I think.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by FarNorthDallas

Perhaps tuition will go down to attract students and people can go back to doing what I did - wait tables and pay for it with cash as you go.

Both college and public school costs are high because of technology.

We spent $Millions to wire the campus with co-ax, then $Millions to wire it with ether-net, and now we're spending $Millions to wire with fiber optics so that we can have bragging rights and claim that everyone should come here and study because there's internet everywhere, even the bathrooms and toilet stalls have WI-FI.

It NEVER ends. 5 years from now they'll have a new technology and they'll be spending $Millions to install that.

It's the same with public schools. Bill Gates will gladly give your high school 3,000 computers because he's going to sucker you into a $30 Million annual IT contract for the next 10 years so the school is going to have to shell out $300 Million.

And no, I'm not kidding, I think the IT contract at one of the high schools here is $30 Million per year.

[runningncircles1]

Not at the top schools. They have HOARDS of money to attract students, and they're bastions for the wealthy anyhow. For example, the entire Ivy League now has implemented policies which state an upper income limit where you get free tuition, room, board, etc.. At Harvard, if your family makes under 60K/year, you don't pay a dime. At Stanford and Emory (not Ivy League, but similar stature) it's 100K/year. At Princeton, they've eliminated loans for students enrolling into the school and replaced them with grants.

This is more likely to hurt poor people who needed loans because: a) tuition prices increased well beyond what Pell grants and subsidized loans would pay for (as we know, they aren't pegged against the CPI, and even if they were, it still wouldn't be enough). b) Public schools increasingly switched to merit-based aid in lieu of need-based aid because PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT FUNDED schools wanted to make a profit by shafting kids who didn't get to go to the best schools and increase their rankings/stats by giving more aid to high-stat students.

The truth is, public universities don't benefit the poor at all... they benefit the upper middle class and many wealthy individuals. They get a tuition subsidized by EVERYONE, plus they got to go to better local schools than the poor (districting and lack of school choice) getting them a better education that gets them all the merit aid on an extremely unlevelled playing field.

And, all the elite schools can't take all the poor... and they won't. Many lower-income individuals don't have the scores to get in because the schools they go to don't emphasize education or college.

So, this is going to suck for many poor individuals. The upper middle and wealthy will go on their usual route. And, the middle class will have mixed results depending on outside circumstances (location, family, education-pressure, savings, etc.).

[runningncircles1]

Perhaps tuition will go down to attract students and people can go back to doing what I did - wait tables and pay for it with cash as you go.

That's a lovely fantasy, but the government kept up with the price of education during that time, allowing students to work part time jobs to earn food money, rent money, and a bit extra tuition money for school. Due to my explanation above, prices at many schools will not go down, and this whole working-to-pay deal will not hold true. Unfortunately, this isn't the 60's, 70s, and 80's where you could do this. This is the Boomlet generation that has been scared into college-education no matter what the costs. That's why colleges will continue raking in the dough...

[runningncircles1]

Both college and public school costs are high because of technology.

I can't say that that is true. I go to one of the most wired universities in the nation (GaTech), and my tuition bill is far lower than many of the counter part schools. Mine is ~5K/year, with tution and fees. At similarly ranked UIUC, it's ~14K for tuition and fees and at UMich it's ~14K. My school is more wired than these places, yet enjoys a much lower tuition. We also get less funding from the state. We do get the HOPE scholarship, but that would raise prices as that would increase demand. There is something else in play here, and I think my description of publics above is part of the answer (also, the increasing amount of aid in general will make unis increase their tuition).

[evilnewbie]

I think college is overhyped... There are too many useless degrees, oversaturated job markets, and not enough emphasis on vocational programs... If everyone wanted to become an engineer, computer programmer, and accountant... there would be a shortage of other jobs and this is what we are seeing.. even when college tuition is increasing, people still want to go to college and major in communications or work to be the one millionth engineer or laugh at becoming an auto mechanic or similar vocational program...

[runningncircles1]

I think college is overhyped... There are too many useless degrees, oversaturated job markets, and not enough emphasis on vocational programs

I can definitely agree with you on that! Though, there are still some needs for college-grads (engineers, doctors, lawyers, teachers). Liberal Arts degrees, OTOH, are as useless as the paper they're written on unless you actually teach the subject. And, many times, that's not the case...

And, when I try to call people out on a BS major that they have no intention of teaching, they say "well, I'm here to learn something I love, unlike you" or some other snide remark. Well, why not read a book? Last I checked, that's free. Or, go on the internet. Why get a degree in it if you don't want to teach it? To get a F.I.R.E. job?

or work to be the one millionth engineer

There's actually a shortage of engineers in this country...

[bale002]

This is the Boomlet generation that has been scared into college-education no matter what the costs.

I think college is overhyped... There are too many useless degrees, oversaturated job markets, and not enough emphasis on vocational programs.

why not read a book?

Dispense with the education of the schools and have good masters at home instead.

I realized a few years ago that, from an economic/investment approach, university education in the US has become so expensive that in many cases it is probably not worth it, there are plenty of viable alternatives, especially for those who have good old-fashion common sense.

And, for what it's worth, just of few weeks ago, The Economist published an article saying basically the same thing.

In the US, we are all bamboozled into throwing resources into a lot of things like ... bailouts, too much insurance, and so on.

I'm not saying don't go to university, but, just like when considering a mortgage or a bailout, consider your alternatives and do your calculations for each scenario carefully.