Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. It takes some serious self-discipline (which many young people haven't developed) to resist using this "easy money" when you are in schools with a lot of other young people, many of whom are being subsidized by well heeled parents who give them credit cards etc. This is a lot of pressure to put on people of that age, especially if they weren't given good guidance on money growing up, or taught how to develop personal responsibility. I'm all for personal responsibility but this stuff reminds me of the drug dealer giving out freebies to make new addict customers, or Big Pharma getting people hooked on pills. There needs to be accountability from these institutions.
On the one hand, loan forgiveness would be life changing to my family. My partner went to undergrad completely covered by scholarships (thanks, Ivy League!) but few get out of law school the same way. He went to a law school that gave him a 50% scholarship, but it was not as well-regarded as some of the other schools he got into. Unfortunately, he graduated in the middle of the recession when entry level law positions were hard to come by. He made his own way by starting his own business, thus keeping his parents (and the family farm) afloat, but it didn't return the dividends of his expected legal career. He came from a very low income family (grew up having to wake up every few hours in upstate NY to put wood on the fire because they didn't have any other form of heat) and law school was what everyone pushed him toward. He's the first to admit that as a 21 year old he did not fully understand the risk he was taking, and he will be paying for that for the rest of his life.
On the other hand, I would have loved nothing more than to have been a social worker. I spend a lot of my free time (pre-pandemic) volunteering with children in the foster care system, and after my cancer diagnosis I got very involved with the teen/young adult social care workers at some of the major local cancer centers and felt that would have been my calling. Would have, that is, if not for the high cost of getting an MSW and the very low expected lifetime payout for such a necessary career. I made other choices in order to maximize my scholarships and tuition remission partnered with a higher expected salary. I know many others who elected to do the same. I've managed to graduate with both an undergraduate and master's degree from top schools with no debt, which involved a lot of work and sacrifice of my long term goals to trade in for some financial stability.
But what it comes down to, for me, is the interest rate. My boyfriend has loyally paid each month well above the minimum amount. And yet his loan total has almost doubled. Why? Incredibly high interest rate.
This is why despite a decent combined income, I only factor in my income for buying our first house or considering having children so that he can put all of his income toward paying down the loan and building up his retirement fund. We will be able to afford a small condo in some farflung suburb on my salary, but kids? Sadly, I don't know that it will be in the cards. And that's almost entirely due to the student loan. He will be paying that loan off until he dies, most likely, but would only have a few years left to go if not for the interest rate.
Low hanging fruits that would make a huge difference for existing and future students would be limiting the interest rate retroactively and expanding the scenarios in which someone can get out of a loan. For instance, one of my volunteer roles is reviewing financial aid applications from young adult cancer survivors. No one signs up for 6 figures of medical school or law school debt expecting to develop brain cancer halfway through. These people now have diminished cognitive ability that prevents them from following their career, but all the loan burden. I see those types of scenarios as very different from someone getting in too deep, and there should be solutions to help people in severely adverse situations.
The real reason why college cost so much is because it is the demand that is being subsidized and not the supply. We can lower prices by subsidizing supply like we do with student lunch programs and food in general. The way it is now is like giving 50% off coupons at Walmart on black friday.
There are ways of lowering higher ed costs. A 529 plan freezes tuition and fees. So if a 8 year old starts a plan that's a decade of preventing inflation. Then add in CLEP and DSST tests. You can test out of sometimes up to two years of higher ed. Combine the two and frankly you end up with two years of payments at prices from ten years ago. You have to moneyball this https://www.artofmanliness.com/artic...ollege-degree/
I worked dead end jobs but banked a fair amount so I could attend without loans. Yeah I graduated later and someone might say some bs of "peak earning years" but capital makes more than labor any day of the week anyway. Debt is fixed and assets are variable.
Knowing what I know now would I do it again? Generally yes but I would have tried to test out of things ahead of time. Personally certifications that might be obscure have significant value as there are those with less of them. Maybe it's a SHRM, PMP, Six Sigma etc. Trade associations often have these types of things and it can show more effort spending a few grand on classes that have odd dates then tens of thousands at a typical university. How many jobs have proprietary software and look at experience with that fully knowing it limits applicants?
If we changed FAFSA to block grants to states to expand their university systems it would create instant competition and we'd see a scaling back of the Olympic like amenties. Where I went it wasn't that bad although when I was at the mess hall at one point they had lamb...it's all you can eat Seriously that's crazy.
the reason why we tend to look towards higher ed is that the students are more vetted than high school. Even if you had a 90% acceptance rate and a 80% graduation that still is more than high school. In addition not all states have standardized tests so it can be harder to determine an apples to apples level. Once you start saying there's no measurement it throws quite a bit out of the window. Mass has MCAS but CT doesn't have anything.
Besides dissolving student loan debt also means legally it becomes a taxable gain. I don't think everyone could afford it and frankly if they can that might not really be help to those that need it. We'd be better off giving retaining to people on unemployment and small business mentoring.
Yes. It takes some serious self-discipline (which many young people haven't developed) to resist using this "easy money" when you are in schools with a lot of other young people, many of whom are being subsidized by well heeled parents who give them credit cards etc. This is a lot of pressure to put on people of that age, especially if they weren't given good guidance on money growing up, or taught how to develop personal responsibility. I'm all for personal responsibility but this stuff reminds me of the drug dealer giving out freebies to make new addict customers, or Big Pharma getting people hooked on pills. There needs to be accountability from these institutions.
I'd add that it's not simply peer-to-peer social pressure. Many students encounter significant pressure from school admin, teachers, or even family members ... none of whom are cosigning the loans ... to attend the best possible school which they can. Particularly if students are accepted to known and well regarded institutions.
I found myself in a high school admin room with both my guidance councilor and arts director literally crying over my choice to attend a lowly state school over an 'elite' ivy-affiliated BFA program. It was absurd and financially reckless behavior by privileged individuals who themselves were never burdened by $150K+ of student debt. It wasn't a thought in their mind.
Fortunately, I had parents which incentivized the financially rational path by offering to cover the majority of tuition/living costs if, and only if, I chose an affordable state school. They were quite literally the only adults in my life lobbying for the low-debt path.
In short, the pressure is immense and the future burden is very abstract.
I'd add that it's not simply peer-to-peer social pressure. Many students encounter significant pressure from school admin, teachers, or even family members ... none of whom are cosigning the loans ... to attend the best possible school which they can. Particularly if students are accepted to known and well regarded institutions.
I found myself in a high school admin room with both my guidance councilor and arts director literally crying over my choice to attend a lowly state school over an 'elite' ivy-affiliated BFA program. It was absurd and financially reckless behavior by privileged individuals who themselves were never burdened by $150K+ of student debt. It wasn't a thought in their mind.
Fortunately, I had parents which incentivized the financially rational path by offering to cover the majority of tuition/living costs if, and only if, I chose an affordable state school. They were quite literally the only adults in my life lobbying for the low-debt path.
In short, the pressure is immense and the future burden is very abstract.
It's totally backwards that the high schools/guidance councilors are credited for their college acceptance "numbers", yet the actual college completion rate never comes back to bite them. I have a feeling their overall advice they dish out would be much different, would they factor both in.
College costs have gone up way faster than general inflation for some 30+ years. It's no longer a good deal. Trouble is, the job market is very competitive and at least for "professional" jobs, it's hard to get anything without a bachelor's degree.
It's not just the colleges taking much bigger profits, one contributing factor is the colleges had kind of an "arms race" with one another in upgrading dining, residences, science and engineering facilities, athletic facilities, etc, and all those capitol improvements cost a boatload of money. Sadly, they have little to do with the quality of the education you get - the schools spent bajillions of dollars on what's really just "nice to have", not "must have", in order to compete to attract students. This was the path to outrageous education costs though.
Two-year degrees from county colleges can work for a lot of people, and are far more affordable. But somehow we need to get the cost of 4-year degrees down, way down. If costs are astronomical, shifting them to the government, which is taxpayers anyway, isn't a solution - the costs are still astronomical, and the people still wind up paying.
Of course the other thing going on with this is that I think people are really beginning to realize that if people attended high already really should be due to not the academic institution but rather the academic integrity and research and rigor of the professors.
Do professors actually need the academic institution to teach? We can make the argument about tenure and I'm not debating its merits but we have so many subjects especially in social sciences that are zero marginal cost simply makes it much easier to move them online.
No academic institution Chase Professor to teach only within that institution. So what would happen if a group of professors simply just adopted and ended up teaching at its own platform. Imagine a masterclass if you would of some of the top professors rather than institutions.
We've been cutting out middlemen for decades now it's not a whole generation. How many people need to see a travel agent today versus the 1960s? How many people need to go to phone books to find businesses? How many need to subscribe to cable to get content?
Of course some might say that I can Ahmad viability for the professor must be there but it really doesn't take a whole lot. A number of years ago there was this essay entitled a thousand true fans. If somebody has a thousand fans that are willing to spend about $10 a month that's pretty much creates a six-figure income. So if you gathered a group of professional professors added in some high quality audio and video production and some more interactivity and raise the price to maybe 50 a month. This is exactly what has been done with platforms like edx and Coursera for years
Of course the other thing going on with this is that I think people are really beginning to realize that if people attended high already really should be due to not the academic institution but rather the academic integrity and research and rigor of the professors.
Do professors actually need the academic institution to teach? We can make the argument about tenure and I'm not debating its merits but we have so many subjects especially in social sciences that are zero marginal cost simply makes it much easier to move them online.
No academic institution Chase Professor to teach only within that institution. So what would happen if a group of professors simply just adopted and ended up teaching at its own platform. Imagine a masterclass if you would of some of the top professors rather than institutions.
We've been cutting out middlemen for decades now it's not a whole generation. How many people need to see a travel agent today versus the 1960s? How many people need to go to phone books to find businesses? How many need to subscribe to cable to get content?
Of course some might say that I can Ahmad viability for the professor must be there but it really doesn't take a whole lot. A number of years ago there was this essay entitled a thousand true fans. If somebody has a thousand fans that are willing to spend about $10 a month that's pretty much creates a six-figure income. So if you gathered a group of professional professors added in some high quality audio and video production and some more interactivity and raise the price to maybe 50 a month. This is exactly what has been done with platforms like edx and Coursera for years
Sounds good in theory, but probably not in reality. Online learning is generally not equal to in person, and it will not attract the best students and professors.
Also, many professors at top universities may be experts in their own field, but can't tie their shoes otherwise. They need the "middle man".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
