Slashdot Mirror
The College-Loan Scandal
Matt Taibbi writes in Rolling Stone about the economics behind college tuition. Interest rates get the headlines and the attention of politicians, but Taibbi says the real culprit is "appallingly high tuition costs that have been soaring at two to three times the rate of inflation, an irrational upward trajectory eerily reminiscent of skyrocketing housing prices in the years before 2008." He writes,
"For this story, I interviewed people who developed crippling mental and physical conditions, who considered suicide, who had to give up hope of having children, who were forced to leave the country, or who even entered a life of crime because of their student debts. ... Because the underlying cause of all that later-life distress and heartache – the reason they carry such crushing, life-alteringly huge college debt – is that our university-tuition system really is exploitative and unfair, designed primarily to benefit two major actors. First in line are the colleges and universities, and the contractors who build their extravagant athletic complexes, hotel-like dormitories and God knows what other campus embellishments. For these little regional economic empires, the federal student-loan system is essentially a massive and ongoing government subsidy, once funded mostly by emotionally vulnerable parents, but now increasingly paid for in the form of federally backed loans to a political constituency – low- and middle-income students – that has virtually no lobby in Washington. Next up is the government itself. While it's not commonly discussed on the Hill, the government actually stands to make an enormous profit on the president's new federal student-loan system, an estimated $184 billion over 10 years, a boondoggle paid for by hyperinflated tuition costs and fueled by a government-sponsored predatory-lending program that makes even the most ruthless private credit-card company seem like a "Save the Panda" charity. Why is this happening? The answer lies in a sociopathic marriage of private-sector greed and government force that will make you shake your head in wonder at the way modern America sucks blood out of its young."
"They called me at work, sometimes two to three times a day, doing all the stuff they aren't supposed to do: threats, et cetera," says 41-year-old Shawn FitzGerald, who owes $300 a month and says he expects to be paying off education loans into his sixties. "They told the receptionist at my job that I was in legal trouble...."
"I have been told I made the wrong decision going to college, as well as being told I was a failure, an idiot and a mooch," says Larissa, a young woman from a blue-collar town outside Chicago. "I've had ex-boyfriends that I never even lived with contacted by collection agents, my childhood friend's distant relatives contacted by them, as well as distant relatives of my own...."
See here:
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
When a collector breaks the law, seek legal representation. Yes, people have sued collectors and won for this kind of abusive behavior.
I read about this all the time and wonder to myself, "Who is their right mind goes 100k in debt for school?".
Students need to take some responsibility here. You may:
* Have to go to community college for the first two years
* Have to live with mommy and daddy for a few years
* Have 6 roommates
* Have a job (yes I am aware that isn't as easy as it sounds)
* Wait a few years to attend college so you can save money
* Join the military so you can get the GI Bill
* GO TO A CHEAPER IN STATE SCHOOL!
Yes college is expensive but a lot of the time what I see is students wanting their cake and eat it too.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
The reason it isn't free is that both parties pray at the alter of free market capitalism. There is a part of the Democratic party that realizes the problems but they aren't the 2-3% of the electorate that decides elections and so the party can safely ignore them (just like the true fiscal conservatives on the right). Free markets only work when there is meaningful competition and true substitute goods, in the education market neither of these things exists, cheaper schools are not seen as substitutes and price competition is minimal to non-existant.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Here's a reality check:
40 years ago you could reasonably go to school and pay for your tuition and fees by working a manual summer job. There are no jobs out there which pay a year's tuition in 3 months for untrained labor, or anything close to it today. Heck, the average starting ANNUAL salary is less than tuition/room/board for a year at practically any private university today.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Most football programs lose money. The schools you are talking about are extreme outliers.
Even in schools where the football programs make money the athletics programs normally lose money.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/25/ncaa-report-shows-many-college-programs-in-the-red/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2011/11/26/football-is-corrupting-americas-universities-it-needs-to-go/
C'mon if you're going to bitch at least the get facts right.
You're dating yourself with this comment. If you're paying full fair at most state universities, there's no way you can pay tuition and living expenses on a part-time job (even with full time in the summer). Perhaps this is possible at a community college if you work maximum hours (20/week), full-time in the summer, don't buy any new books/clothes/anything for 5.5 years.
For example - look at the University of California system, once considered the best public university system in the world, and one of the best bargains (not true anymore). They're estimating $30k / year for in-state students (including living expenses). Please tell me how you managed to make $30k/year working part time?
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/paying-for-uc/cost/
In much of europe, college is payed for by government issue 0% interest student loans to universities with tuition caps. The repayment of these loans is based on the persons income after graduation. If they never find a sufficiently good job after a certain number of years the loans are forgiven. It generally works out very well.
I read about this all the time and wonder to myself, "Who is their right mind goes 100k in debt for school?".
From Collegedata.com:
In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a "moderate" college budget for an in-state public college for the 2012–2013 academic year averaged $22,261. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $43,289.
OK. A little math here: A "moderate" cost for 4 years at a state school (not counting inflation, which makes this a joke really): $89,000. "Moderate" cost for 4 years at a private college: $173,000. So who goes into 100K kind of debt for school? It looks like pretty much everyone who doesn't have family resources to fall back on.
Tenured professors don't necessarily get outrageous salaries. I looked up one of my professors in graduate school: late-career full professor, solid international reputation, great researcher, great teacher. He made $110K or so -- far below what he'd be worth to private industry.
Why can't others do the same?
Long story short, because ceteris paribus is utter bullshit. There's a fair chance you got lucky, or live in a state that controls tuition better than others, or are leaving out part of the story (like any scholarships, grants, preferential treatment due to legacy/social/racial status, free credit hours due to employment, etc).
Point being, not all people/situations/opportunities are created equally.
Side note, your exceptional circumstances do not change the absolute fact that the tuition system is seriously gamed against most people.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If you'd really been paying attention you would have noticed the inflection point since 2002. Between 1913 and then house prices roughly followed inflation, with some up and down swings. They didn't start going nuts until 2002.
I spent the first year at a community college which is practically free in most states,
As an alumni, former employee, and on-again-off-again student of a state-funded community college, I call bullshit. Tuition at our little school has been going up every year, and with the most recent increase they're charging almost $900 for a single, 4 credit hour class.
That doesn't include books and the myriad of bullshit fees they tack on. My guess is, your first year was "practically free" because of grants (like Pell) and/or scholarships (like A+).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
This is a very important point. And the current set of changes is not the first time there has been a cost shift because of a reduction in government support. This also occurred in the late sixties and early seventies when the DoD was forced to reduce their (rather large) support to university research programs. Since tuition is a fraction of actual cost, a shift in the external support produces a disproportionate impact on tuition. When I started teaching at a state school 20 years ago, tuition was ~25% of cost at our institution. It is now a bit more than a third because of the reduction of external support. That means that even if there were no change in costs and no inflation, tuition would go up by 32%. Add to that inflation (and that means real inflation of the goods and services that a university uses) and you can see a serious increase in student cost. But as they say, it is worse than that. Over the last 20 years there has been a steady stream of legislation at both the state and federal level that has introduced new tasks and concomitantly new expenses. This is over and above inflation and has little positive effect on actual instruction. I would also add clear increases in bureaucratic processes associated with accreditation. The bottom line is that student tuition and fees (don't forget fee escalation) has gone up scandalously. At the same time, I am teaching two to three times as many students (who accordingly get less of my time) than I did when I started. And it is similar for most of my colleagues. I will be the first to agree that we should be looking at different and more efficient modalities of instruction. But we also need to be thinking clearly about all of the factors influencing tuition. --- not that thoughtfulness is a hallmark of slashdot
As of three years ago when I was taking some classes there, my closest community college was $37.50 per unit (and the year before, had been $30.00 per unit). Apparently, it's currently $46 per unit. $900 for a 4-unit class is closer to the amount that I paid at a State school, about 5 years ago. I don't know where you live, but it sounds like you're being ripped off.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
- "Young white American male" has all sorts of implied privilege that not everyone has.
Well you want to know what buddy, in the context of getting scholarships and grants, "Young white American male" has all sorts of real-world drawbacks that not everyone else is subjected to, so STFU about some white privilege BS when, for the specific case of grants and scholarships for higher education, racial minorities and females receive, per capita, significantly more money. THAT is the "privilege" that being a "young white American male" brings. Eat it.