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."
Universities have no real incentive to lower prices. Why should they? They can foist costs onto a third party.
Also, their costs keep going up - healthcare, salaries, maintenance. Their cost structure is basically fixed. The only way they can cover those is by raising tuition.
This isn't a new problem. This is a structural problem that's been pointed out many times. Why is this news?
Any union shop has the same issues.
They scales won't tip, but I sure will.
Her name is Candy.... please welcome her to the main stage and show her that you care guys. She really IS trying to pay her way through college!
The more they try to make college "affordable" via loans, scholarships, etc. the more the colleges and universities will raise their prices until it is just barely affordable by all participants. They want to maximize their income -- as any business does. On the other hand, if we were to cut off student loans and scholarships you can bet that the prices would plummet and they'd stop building fancy buildings named after themselves. (Some universities have exercise areas that are reminiscent of spas and exclusive health resorts than a university.) It is amazing that our parents and grandparents were able to do things like send men to the moon without plush padded seating and nicely carpeted hallways at their universities. Even so, they could still afford to get an education.
Aren't health care costs a closer comparison? Both cases of vulnerable people being taken advantage of on a large scale.
Education in Japan, Work in USA, and wife from France. That's the formula for happy and well played life.
The states have been cutting funding to higher education for years. Costs for running a university are only getting higher. Either the university cuts programs and services or raise tuition.
"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.
Meanwhile, unless I'm mistaken, kids in Europe go to college for free. Meanwhile, some are calling for that here as well.
Free Martian Whores!
Hey OPAMA, you wanna get the country out of it's slump? Forgive student loan debt. That'll do more to boost the economy than your silly bail-outs.
I've watched tuition at my local state university go from $150/credit hour to $350/credit hour in 8 years. I have friends graduating with engineering degrees that have 30k in debt from a STATE SCHOOL. This isn't an Ivy League school, but a state university. How does that compute? And the whole time, the school itself is hiring more Administration people and getting rid of, or driving off, many of the professors.
Tuition continues to skyrocket, yet they close more sections for classes every semester. How are you going to sit there and tell me that "tuition needs another hike this semester", and "oh by the way, we're only teaching Kinematics in the Spring now, so you'll have to wait till next year. Sorry."
For lack of a better way to put it, it's horseshit.
“I’ve been frustrated that those making hiring decisions can’t see a little further. In some formats, especially in IT, the 4 year process doesn’t work for some, especially those who have learning disabilities, “The older college system is not for all, and some people learn better on their own. It’s an antiquated system, especially in IT.”
“Schools that are based around 2 years of intensive, hands-on IT training are much better equipped than those spending on English or composition classes. That’s how you can be more flexible and keep up with the industry. Even awarding badges would make the system more relevant.”
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/
This article, like many others, misses an important point. Even if colleges hold their total expenditures to the rate of inflation, state support has been declining dramatically over the past decades. As a consequences students are picking up a greater share of the total expenditures through tuition. Clearly that will result in tuition rising at a rate faster than inflation.
If you want to attack wasteful college expenditures, which is a worthwhile topic, you must focus on total expenditures per unit of size (student, degree, credit hour, whatever). Looking at only the part of the expenditure financed by tuition is highly misleading. Unless we're talking about for-profit colleges. Those are sucking the lifeblood out of college-bound youth. Just look at the per degree debt levels of college loans that go to for-profits. "Among all bachelor's degree recipients, median debt was about $7,960 at public four-year institutions, $17,040 at private not-for-profit four-year institutions, and $31,190 at for-profit institutions." [http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/]
I had a solid 6 years worth of state school tuition/costs in the bank by the time my daughter was 6. Now that I've still got 7 years to go, we're hovering between 4 and 5 years worth. I feel like there should be some way to invest in colleges, 'cause I'm certainly not getting that kind of ROI in the market!
*Yes - you can pre-pay for college in some states. As crazy as all get out - if you want to pre-buy 4 years of State school in Virginia for a 12 year old it will cost you MORE than if you buy it for a 16 year old. Even they know that the system is fucked.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Part of this has to do with the subsidies they add to tuition. I remember when I was in school, tuition was about $2000 per semester. One semester, they decided to jack up tuition by $400. Most of that $400 was earmarked for subsidies for lower-income students. I found out during a meeting where the chancellor announced the change that 40% of our overall tuition went to subsidies. 40%! At which point I asked:
"So you're increasing tuition to help students who can't afford tuition, because we keep raising tuition to help students who can't afford tuition?"
They just kind of shrugged that question off.
Its already tipping as defaults are at an all time high but thanks to the changes Bush passed in 06 you can't even get out of debt with bankruptcy and that REALLY needs to change. Living in a small college town I hear of at least a couple a year committing suicide because of student loans, last year one in my own building hanged himself because they wouldn't stop hounding him over it.
That said after the student loan bubble bursts they'll be one major bubble left to pop and that's the stock bubble and when that one pops colleges will be ghost towns as it'll make the depression look like a flash crash, VERY nasty and only a matter of time now, the bubble is too massive to slowly deflate.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Cars don't cost that much. Teenagers don't buy houses. The decision-makers here are people who aren't even old (or mature) enough to drink - are completely impulsive - have no life-experience and less of a tangible "long-term" outlook - and they're actually *pressured* (by society, parents, high-school guidance counselors, etc) to go with the BEST school they can [at any cost].
What can possibly go wrong??
While I would have loved to receive an advanced education for free, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. I worked my way through debt-free and received my "4 year" degree in 5.5 years by going to a state university and living a reduced lifestyle. Why can't others do the same? Why do they have to go into debt in the first place? This smells more like a problem with irresponsibility and poor life choices than some sort of systemic issue.
Meanwhile, unless I'm mistaken, kids in Europe go to college for free.
Nothing is free. Ever.
Not education. Not healthcare.
"Free" means you're making someone else pay for it.
Whether one agrees with it or not, call it what it is.
I mean, the football programs like where I went to school, MORE than pay for themselves, they prop up all the other non-revenue generating sports.
It isn't like student tuition is going to college athletics, in fact from the schools I know. the athletics are subsidizing the rest of the school...
I grew up in the south, I'm talking about schools like U of AL, LSU, the schools in MS...etc.
Is that not the way it is in other school conferences?
I'm not actually a huge sports fan myself, but c'mon if you're going to bitch, at least get the fact right on who is spending who's money where.
I agree it is atrocious what colleges are doing today...but let's be fair about the money accusations.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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?
we can put more funding in to Community Colleges and make so that any other college MUST take the credits in full.
this has been well known for nearly 3 years but it doesnt really get much coverege because, well, yeah its the same on a number of levels but disasterously worse.
School loans cant be absolved through bankruptcy, they'll take them from any form of income you earn. this 'perpetuity' makes them attractive to investors because its "foolproof" and acceptable by the plutocracy because it ensures that even if you get a good education, your position results in nothing more than endentured servitude to the state in the hopes of one day living the american dream after those loans get paid off. politicians like the idea because it boosts school enrollment and kids think the whole thing is swell until they realize no ones hiring.
the most telling sign is the recent snafu about the student loan rate, which was tossed about without much bickering at all despite the fact that both sides of the house mortally detest the other. a deal was reached quickly for a number of reasons, not the least of which include another round of occupy protests but this time perhaps with violence and property damage that isnt fabricated by the news. We are by all indications keeping the ship afloat and trying not to draw too much attention to the flaming lido deck. Im not sure when its going to happen, but expect some serious shit to hit the fan when investors realize how dangerous it is to insist millions of people shuffle around with thousands in permanent debt. the fear isnt that some day the markets will crash, its that some day the kid with the biology masters working at dennys is going to pick up a molotov.
Good people go to bed earlier.
What year was this? I went through college from 2000 to 2004, 18-21 credit hours per semester and 30 hours of network administration work per week. I still had to take out loans to make it. I do not regret it one bit, as it helped me get my degree and eventually the job I have and love now. For a white American male with no family money to speak of, there was no way to make it through without loans.
We should put the onus on the universities, to certify that if the student completes the degree he/she is seeking, there is at least some reasonable chance the loan will be paid back. They universities should disclose the mean and median starting salaries of the majors they are offering. Like the home loans used to have some basic rules like, "not more than 27% of gross for mortgage, not more than 34% for all loan payments, 20% down". Similar easy to grasp metrics should be made available.
But in a free market economy, if some people want to shoot themselves in their foot, there is nothing to stop them. But at least we someone should be telling them, they have a gun in their hand pointing to their feet and if they squeeze the trigger they will get hurt. Instead we are incentivising the bullet peddlers .
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What year was this?
They have debt because tuition costs more than the jobs they can get pay. If you are paying $25k a year in tuition and are making 17k a year you will end up with debt.
State universities are being increasingly defunded by states who are facing budget difficulties. State universities are a nice to have for states but you can bet they'll try to defund them any chance they get. Worst of all states can dictate how much tuition state universities charge if they want state money and put a strangle hold on their staff and abilitiy to hire good professors and services for the university. The push has been towards privatization and eventual elimination of state schools thanks to state budget problems.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Big sports schools that have huge fan bases and television contracts cover costs and make a profit. Otherwise, schools piss money into sports hoping to end up like them. It's a gamble for rising schools.
Now, that's for private, non-profit schools. Public schools it has jumped substantially, but not for any nefarious reason: it's what happens when the state legislature looks for easy cuts in the budget and axes higher ed first. When I went to William and Mary back in the mid-80s, 34.7% of the budget was covered by the state. It's 12.8% now, but they're still expected to offer everything they did before (and more) as well as give discounts to in-state students. That money can come only from two places: tuition and endowment.
Endowment is an entire 'nother subject. You might have noticed a serious drop in the stock market a few years back? We (and many other schools) run a three year trailing average on endowment draw, so that's still hurting badly. Oh, and you can't get bonds or other securities with yields higher than a percent or two these days.. Couple the two and your endowment income has cratered as well.
Can we cut budgets? Sure: I started here six years ago in IT and my budget is 20% less than was when I joined. Software vendors don't care: my SPSS licensing costs have tripled in those 3 years for example, and everyone else wants their 5% a year bump. And I'm at a healthy school: I've been at ones that aren't and it's worse.
The real abuse IMHO is the loan industry. We've somehow gotten this idea that it's ok to put yourself into debt for the rest of your life for a degree. (And that debt, unlike every other kind can't ever be vacated by bankruptcy) Nobody should take out $100k of debt for any degree, and the feds shouldn't back it, much like they shouldn't back flood insurance for people who want to live on barrier islands. That may mean you don't get your dream school. Maybe it means 2 years of community college before residential. There are plenty of ways to get an education- shop for them just like you would for an phone
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Its already tipping as defaults are at an all time high but thanks to the changes Bush passed in 06 you can't even get out of debt with bankruptcy and that REALLY needs to change
This is always something that has really bugged me. Why exactly is it someone's right to borrow money and then not pay it back? If you borrowed it, you should have to pay it back. It doesn't make any sense to allow people out from under their debts that they made the conscious decision to borrow. If you don't understand the total costs, how the lending and repayment processes work, or if you don't have any solid plans for living with that debt, you shouldn't be borrowing it. Period. I don't care if it's a mortgage, a car loan, a school loan, or even your neighbor's tools. Your borrowing choices and the repayments from those choices should always be your own responsibility.
States want to give less money to state schools. Well, when there's less coming in from taxes they can either cut services, or raise prices. "Do more with less," is a line from uninformed PHBs and politicians, it just doesn't work that way. Many universities have done both, cut some services, and raised rates.
Get real. Just look at other nations and how they handle their education systems. It is precisely because there is so much profit motive involved that things are the worst anywhere in the [first] world. And the patterns are plain for all to see. It's not a "free market" compatible situation. What do I mean by that?
Simple. We talk about supply and demand as key factors in the free market. But in cases where there is unlimited demand there is massive exploitation by business unless regulation is present. Take power for example. Most states understand that power has unlimited demand and that utilities must be regulated. California and Texas went with deregulation ostensibly to increase competition and lower prices while increasing quality -- free market thought. What happened? The highest energy prices in the nation. And medical costs are another example. The system grew from a pay the provider system where multiple providers can compete for your business into one where consumers pay using "someone else's money." (The insurance system) Once medical insurance became a virtual requirement for having access to healthcare, competition all but disapepared and prices went crazy. And consumers didn't care because they paid seemingly reasonable monthy costs for something only a small percentage of people were using. (Paying for something they MIGHT need under terms which they don't understand instead of simply paying for something in exchange for something.)
The problem is that free market capitalism can never exist in its purest form because human corruption will always creep in with every form of bait and switch imaginable. They are actively redefining words, terms and expressions so people don't get what they think they are paying for. ("Unlimited"? Really?) And the same free-market people are lobbying and standing in line for their government subsidies all day long while complaining they want government out of their lives.
So you can go on trolling with your right-wing nonsense because it doesn't work any better than left-wing nonsense. Everything has practical limits in one direction or another and those limits should be defined at the point where peoples' worst natures are activated and massive exploitation begins to occur. And it's precisely the goal of preventing massive harm and exploitation which government should exist for. Obviously, this means business lobbies should be forbidden but that can't happen without a massive revolution so I wouldn't look for it to happen. But the next best thing is for people to wake up and start caring about what goes on in government at all levels. These days, most corruption is done in plain sight. People just have to look and care about it.
College is not free in Europe. The people's taxes pay for it.
There is no such thing as free except for the breaths you take. Someone, somewhere, pays for everything, whether they want to or not.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
For Education, it's particularly unbalanced (depending on your tax structure), because taxing people who didn't go to college to pay for those who did it real economic unfairness.
I far prefer a system where your university gets some % of what you make in the first 10 years or so after you graduate, on some diminishing-over-time scale. Even better if it's a % of what you make beyond what the average person with no college degree makes. If a student doesn't earn more as a result of going to college, why should the college earn more?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yep. Here in Sweden there is no tuition. Paid for through taxes. Like the health care.
Exorbitant taxes? Nope. Most people pay something like 30%. While this is more than most pay in USA, when you add tuitions and health insurance it turns out we pay less.
Why? Because there is no billionaire middle man taking his arbitrary cut.
Yeah, socialism stinks, right?
Having an educated society is not free, we all benefit from it.
The college I graduated with over 10 years ago posted annual 2014 tuition of $3333 x 4 years that is only 13,333. This doesn't include room and board. Yes, that is a reasonable amount of money(I lost more than this amount on paper with the 2008 housing value crash). But it isn't the life of being in the poor house that the media makes it out to be. I worked my way through school and didn't have much help from relatives. It isn't quite the party as having a free ride is, but it is still entirely doable in this day in age. I know there are a lot of universities out there that are charging 50k+ for a 4 year education. The school I went to was ranked in the top 50 of engineering schools in the US. I know I know not the top 10 but I'll live. Today's teens need to buck up, make wise decisions and be told that absolutely nothing is the end of the world until you die. If you are of sound mind and have the work ethic you have a solid chance to do whatever you want to do in life.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
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 state schools aren't necessarily cheap. California's estimate is $30k/year.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/paying-for-uc/cost/
It was 2002 to 2007. And as a young white American male also with no family money, I worked multiple jobs and figured it out. No loans at all, no scholarships either until my senior year when I managed to land a research scholarship that required 15 hours/week of research with a professor. I missed out on a lot as a consequence, all those "college experiences" that others talked about like parties and such. It was the lifestyle I couldn't afford, not the tuition.
In the case of student loans, it's because their first experience with debt wasn't an $800 credit card that caused them trouble but a $300,000 school loan that cost them $1.5M to pay off. They're young, naive, and ripe for the taking.
To put it into perspective: Legal college loans are morally equivalent to legalizing sex with anyone 10 years and older. Especially that sweet spot around 12-14 where they have none of the suspicion and all of the romanticism, and you can sweet talk them into anything--love 'em and leave 'em, give them tons of STDs, knock 'em up, pass them around to your friends to pay off your debts, the works. The whole while they're thinking, this is great. Until it isn't, then they're like, my life is horrible and I'm left with a broken vag and ass and fucking strange diseases and somebody's kid I don't know who....
That's basically what student loans do.
Regular bankruptcy is more an economics thing: there's no way this person is ever going to meaningfully pay this off, inflation is going to marginalize the damage his non-payment does, so it's less damaging to society to give him a pass and mark that he's an idiot and you don't want to let him borrow money ever.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The only schools where athletics are self-funding with excess going to education are the big sports schools. Stanford, UCLA, UM, Ohio State, Florida State, and the other big sports names.
If a school isn't in the top 16, they aren't making their investment back in athletics. It's just a loss leader to stay relevant because their academics are irrelevant. And by staying relevant in athletics they're hoping they get applicants interested in attending there.
Really, though, it's really only indicative of warped USA priorities. Higher education is supposed to be about education, not school spirit, not meatheads throwing balls around, not ticket sales, not full-sail scholarships for those who will wind up contributing nothing to society except getting into professional sports and making a bunch of Gatoraide commercials.
It's a little bit like glorifying the British monarchy. Sure, castles and stuff bring tourism dollars, but at the expense of massive losses of waived inheritance tax by nobles.
Actually, it does make sense. Burdening people with lifetime debt they'll never repay hurts the entire economy, which hurts everyone. These people will never be customers of any business, never contribute fully to the economy, and never have successful lives unless they can start over. It hurts society much more to "punish" them by making them tough it out and keep trying to service debt. If you want to hold them totally accountable, at least admit that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face just to exact some ideological, punitive, justice.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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.
He said pray at the alter of, like a a deity, it doesn't actually exist, and no lifestyle you live will be "free market" enough for the ardent moralizers. It's a broken mentality. There never were "true free markets".
I think your suggestions are good, but I think it's wrong-headed to blame the students for 'not taking responsibility.
This is a systemic problem. We have a bunch of 18 year-olds with relatively little life experience, and we keep telling them that going to a good college will make them rich someday. We give them the impression that taking out massive amounts of student loan is a wise move. This message comes from parents and teachers and politicians and the media, and you can't blame a bunch of kids for believing it.
We need to take a good hard look at how we're treating education. Is college a place where kids can receive a good general education, or are they vocational schools? Are we promoting education for the good of our society, or do we think it's a privilege for rich people that should be denied to the poor because they haven't earned it? Is the purpose of college to educate our young adults, or to entertain them with frat parties and amateur minor-league sports teams?
I don't get the part of the article, where the author is complaining about the spending on the Athletics??
I mean, the football programs like where I went to school, MORE than pay for themselves, they prop up all the other non-revenue generating sports.
It isn't like student tuition is going to college athletics, in fact from the schools I know. the athletics are subsidizing the rest of the school...
I grew up in the south, I'm talking about schools like U of AL, LSU, the schools in MS...etc.
Is that not the way it is in other school conferences?
I'm not actually a huge sports fan myself, but c'mon if you're going to bitch, at least get the fact right on who is spending who's money where.
I agree it is atrocious what colleges are doing today...but let's be fair about the money accusations.
That's because everyone has forgotten the basic reason for colleges and universities. Places where people can go and learn, get an education, and/or research. Instead it has become a circus for sports - with its attendant media coverage, fan following, controversies, and what not.
I absolutely respect the need for entertainment and sports. I love it myself. But why the heck are colleges even involved in this racket? And it IS a racket. A racket that media houses and "the suits" that own sport franchises and clubs do extremely well.
So while you say sports should not be brought up in this discussion because it pays for itself, I say that is precisely the problem. Colleges now fancy themselves to be big businesses, sport franchises, media houses, and what not. And it should not be this way. And it is the students and their families that pay the price - literally.
Heck, this whole notion of profit and loss should not even be the primary point of discussion when you talk about colleges and hospitals. I'm an ardent believe in free markets and capitalism, but damn, these two things are so massively screwed up. If any organization's duty (in a capitalistic setup) is to its stakeholders, then these idiots needs to realize that when it comes to colleges and hospitals, their primary stakeholders are the people who patronize their services. Not frickin sport fans and beer bars.
Sorry for the rant. I'm terrified to think how horrible the system is going to be when my kid grows up.
Yes, it's all tax money. The difference is that, in Europe, taxes pay for public education, healthcare, infrastructure, and so on. In the US&A, taxes pay for a bloated military and a massive espionage apparatus.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Right, because there's no point in learning anything that won't increase your earning potential.
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.
And since college-educated people earn more money and thus pay more taxes, you're entirely right: tax-funded education is not free, it's a net earner.
European countries are democratic. If their governments pay for college out of tax money it's because the citizens who pay said taxes are okay with it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Ah -- the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!
This is exactly what classical, supply-and-demand economics would predict.
Most of us understand why the government can't just print more money. The price of everything would just go up.
This is exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that in this case, the government is printing a special kind of money -- money that can only be used for one thing. It is no surprise when then price of that thing just goes up accordingly.
Subsidies (i.e., cheap loans) increase demand. Increased demand causes the price to rise.
Consider:
* The US massively subsidizes education. The price of education rises far beyond the rate of inflation.
* The US massively subsidizes housing. The price of housing rises far beyond the rate of education.
* The US massively subsidizes health care. The price of health care rises far beyond the rate of inflation. (Except, of course, the kinds of health care -- like cosmetic surgery -- that do not typically get subsidized. Costs in these areas have plummeted.)
I don't pretend to have an answer to this dilemma. The only really clear thing is that the laws of supply and demand aren't *statutory* laws, that can just be altered with a pen and a lot of hand-waving. They are fundamental natural laws, and well-intentioned attempts to manipulate markets (from student loans to price-control regimes) almost always trigger equal and opposite consequences.
The real shame is that important issues like these are so easily demagogued. Even though the system is clearly broken, no politician in his right mind would ever propose changing it. "Look!" people would scream. "He hates education! And poor people!"
Everyone here does seem quick to say "Oh just do an ROI calculation on college and don't take it for granted you should go" without recalling that for decades now we've pretty much shoved the idea that "if you don't go to college you're a complete shit and failure of a human being (what are you gonna do, flip burgers? Because people who flip burgers are subhuman shit after all)" down everyone's throats, and most people don't want to be thought of as complete shit.
If you are paying $25k a year in tuition and are making $40k a year, you will also end up with debt. Federal and state taxes will eat up 33% of that $40, so you're talking $26k left. Then you've got rent, and even a slumlord will charge $300/mo so you've got $22k left (and if you want to stay at a university dorm, that'd be $10K/yr). Then you've got food, and even an anorexic will have to pay $40/week for food, so that's another $2k a year gone and you've got $20k left. You better be walking to college because there's no way you've got money for a car, car insurance, or gasoline. So, living in a slum, walking to college, eating like an anorexic, not buying any new clothes or any new anything, and "making" a $40k salary, you've got $20k to pay off your $25k a year tuition. That still puts you in $5k debt a year. By contrast, if you took your $20k over four years ($80k) and invested it piss-poor bonds of 3% interest a year, you'd have $260 thousand dollars by the time you retire (40yrs from now) with that money alone. If you're actually smart, the kind of smart that lets you get into college to begin with, you can be making 10% growth a year and have $3.6 million in 40 years. That's just with the $80k.
I did something similar: worked 30 hours a week, lived in cheap housing, took 6 years to graduate, but did so debt free. Having said that, I have mixed feelings about it. Yes I worked hard and sacrificed to make it work. I was lucky too though and had opportunities other people don't necessarily have:
1) I had a good quality state school I could attend.
2) My parents let me live at home until I could find a good/cheap housing solution.
3) My parents helped me out with classes my first year until I got established.
4) I had good jobs in high school and was able to build a savings.
5) I managed to get a civil service position at the University that provided me with some free credits every semester.
It seems to me that in today's world it may not be enough to be responsible and diligent. I'm not sure I could have done it had I not had the opportunities I had.
What state, and what was the tuition? Here in NYS (SUNY) 10 years ago the state paid 75% of the tuition and you paid 25%, now it's the other way around. My wife is looking at upgrading from her associate's to her bachelor's and it's $14k/yr for nursing.
At min wage of $7.25 (minus 6.2% FICA and 1.34% Medicare) you would have to work 2090 hours/year (40.2 hrs/wk w/ no vacation, holidays or sick time) just to pay the tuition. Then there are books, either a place to live or a way to get back and forth to school, etc. Working your way through school ain't what it used to be.
Completely true. I don't really care so much about the choice between "low taxes, few services" and "high taxes, many services", but what we have now is "moderate taxes, low services, giant military". That's far worse than the other two.
Yeah anybody can do that without numbers. Without the knowing what you paid for college, your living expenses and what you earned your statements are meaningless. Thanks for playing Potsy.
"It's teh free marketz!!! herp!"
You show me a bubble growing by 5-8-10% a year and I'll show you a mass of government involvement; subsidies, tax breaks, guaranteed debt, etc.
Housing bubble? Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie Mae, Home Mortgage Interest Deductions, capital gains exclusion, etc. When the music stopped the GSE's held $0.5E12 of subprime, alt-a, no-doc, stated income garbage loans. Government was the Market Maker.
Healthcare bubble? Medicaid, Medicare, VHA, CHIP, TRICARE, untaxed employer health care benefits, etc. Obamacare is going to subsidize tens of millions of exchange policies. 46% of all US health care spending is via government and the costs are spiraling out of control.
Education bubble? Pell grants, Sallie Mae's government backed tuition debt, huge state subsidies to public universities, Student Loan Interest Deduction, etc.
There is nothing "free market" about any of this. It's all government policy and government money.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Did you go in the 1960's or 1970's? What a bunch of freeloaders that generation was. Tuition was paltry, jobs plentiful.
I didn't realize that the 21st century definition of freeloader included people who studied and then got a job. If you believe that then you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
The problem is not that my generation were freeloaders, but that your generation is getting screwed. If my sympathies aren't sufficient, take heart in the fact that I'll also probably be getting screwed when my daughter goes to college. Actually before that - my wife needs to upgrade from her associate's to her bachelor's.
This is the only sensible system I've ever seen proposed and it's the one that's almost universally reviled by the majority of the those who'd have to implement it.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Which is in a different universe from where students are today.
Go back to school at 3x the cost and then spend a year sending out resumes before you presume to lecture today's grads. Why is there's always some dude who starts up with their "back in myyyyy day" crap when costs have exploded since they graduated when Clinton was still president.
25k is an expensive tuition. Most tech schools have programs for 3k/yr or less, and many states have perfectly acceptable schools with tuitions 6-10k/yr for instate. The whole "100k in student debt" story is completely ridiculous. Unless you now go by Dr, if you paid 100k for your education you got fleeced.
All the responsibility is being shuffled onto the students. That's the problem.
Someone who wants to go to a good law school, and double that for medical. Your unspoken implication is that only the well off have any business going into such high-end professions, thus starting a veritable caste system.
Is that a bug, or a feature for you? Don't bother with the "I put myself through school working part time in the 90's" that some helpful person posts in any of these discussions, when costs have doubled a few times since then.
It doesn't make any sense to allow people out from under their debts that they made the conscious decision to borrow.
Stop your moralizing, we live in an era when banks get bailed out by the Federal Reserve. I think everyone should have the right to declare themselves a bank and get the same treatment.
Anyone who's been exposed to universities at the faculty or administrative level, as an outsider, can see that the system is a nightmare of waste. I was brought on during a supposed hiring freeze to teach a non-essential course at a university in my area; I was taking over for a friend who was no longer free. By the end of that same semester they had begun major construction on campus. At about the same time one of the professors approached me about buying new computers for the class. It blew my mind that this guy was suggesting top of the line Mac Pros and an all new suite of software to replace what we had been using. What we already had was more than adequate and fairly current, and that's not to mention that the school already gave most, if not all students a Macbook of their own. T
Money is no object at these universities. It reminds me of the healthcare system where the solution to every financial problem is to simply raise rates. They've got to have the latest and greatest of everything regardless of whether it provides any real value. Unfortunately, there's budgetary control is nonexistent; it's literally a free-for-all.
If the university administration gets it in their heads to focus on athletics then you're really screwed. They'll hire some high profile individual, at massive expense, to bolster their athletic program. That entails further spending all with the goal of having one good year to get the university on the map. The hope there is obviously to attract more students, even if it comes at the expense of academic quality.
The problem here also is that no one is identifying and addressing the problem. Americans are far too comfortable with getting into debt. So they'll take out these massive loans, and the money the parents "save" by not paying for school goes to spoiling the student with a shiny new car and generous housing. Most people seem to believe that the solution to the problem is to make getting loans even easier.
The stat I heard several years ago is if the price of milk had risen at the same rate as college tuition we'd be paying $40 for a gallon. The economics are seriously screwed up but I see no evidence that the bubble is going to burst. The same school I taught at has seen a continued construction boom. I have no idea what's going on anymore, but new buildings are going up all over campus.
But the really screwed up thing here is that they do nothing at all for the community they reside in. It's a giant money sink that skips right over the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, because these schools grease the right pockets they get to operate with impunity. It's those neighboring communities who suffer the consequences.
You show me a bubble growing by 5-8-10% a year and I'll show you a mass of government involvement; subsidies, tax breaks, guaranteed debt, etc.
Alright. Explain the Rhodium bubble of 2008, the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929, Australia's Poseidon bubble of 1970, the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, and the .Com Bubble of 2000 as "all government policy and government money."
I'd also strongly dispute that the healthcare crisis is all government's fault. Even a 100% private healthcare system is not a free market due to the lack of voluntary participation in the system and general lack of price-competition. (No one chooses the "cheapest" over the "best" unless they are simply priced out of the best.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I bought three years of prepaid tuition for my son and daughter in the early 2000's, about four years before the first one went to college. I liquidated investments in an UGMA fund to do so, reasoning that the prepaid plan would appreciate at the rate of tuition inflation.
Tuition was frozen in Maryland that year, and didn't increase at all until the first child graduated.
And to make things worse, the UGMA was mostly stock, and partially stock in ... Apple.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Seems you hang out with pretty stupid kids then.
Lets apply your logic more broadly... what kind of forgiveness should we have for 18 year olds who enlist in the military for a term of years and later decide it might be the wrong move for them? Just cut them loose and forgive all of the money spent? Or require that they complete their service?
There is already an answer... we call it contract law, something 18 year olds are able to participate in on their own.
Now if you want to have a discussion about upping the age of majority for contract law, voting, military service and other things to 21 because you think 18 year old so stupid or gullible that they should be forgiven for poor choices... that is another topic.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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
I'd be willing to give socialism a try, except that it turns people into unbearable snots.
Dark Reflection
Exorbitant taxes? Nope. Most people pay something like 30%. While this is more than most pay in USA, when you add tuitions and health insurance it turns out we pay less.
Don't you also pay a 25% VAT on most goods and services? And even the lower rate for food is 12%? According to the Wikipedia, roughly 45-50% of your GDP goes into taxes and output government services. Total effective tax rates in the US are under 30%, even with our utterly ridiculous levels of military spending. We pay a *lot* less than you do.
Personally, I'd rather have the Swedish model due to the quality of the services rendered (except for your insane stance that each person's tax records must be a matter of public record).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Problem 0: Not enough students are going to college
Solution 0: Add state and federally funded grants / loans to incentivize students to attend
Problem 1: Too many students are overcrowding our Universities
Solution 1: Increase admission standards to appear more "selective" and thus become more desirable so we can charge more
Problem 2: College is too expensive
Solution 2: Increase the availability of loans to everyone to help them offset the increased cost
Problem 3: None of our students are able to get jobs in their field now that they have graduated
Solution 3: ???
Problem 4: College students are coming out college with too many loans
Solution 4: ???
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
That's a good analogy.
If I had sex with a 16-year-old girl, I would go to jail because she is not competent to give consent to having sex.
But if I sell that 16-year-old girl a college loan, even though I know that people in her situation are never able to pay those loans off and are sinking deeper into undischargeable debt, she is competent to agree to that contract.
If the US is doing such a bad job compared to all these countries, why are they still coming here to study and work?
I think you're asking the wrong question.
If the US is doing such a great job, why are so many of your colleagues not Americans?
The issue at hand is not the quality of education, but the outrageous, crippling expense of it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Social message aside, a BS/BA is pretty much mandatory for getting through HR for most jobs now. Tech people are in a bit better shape, but now pretty much any office job (that you apply for, not 'know someone') will not even look at a resume without a degree.
I was working 40 to 60 hours a week, spent a few years taking classes at a community college, lived at home with my parents, pinched pennies to the point I was still wearing my clothes from high school, went to a cheap state school in a cheap state (Mississippi), and I graduated with $40k in student loans when i left school.
I find these stories of "toughing it out and working through school" to be incredibly unlikely. Because that is exactly what I did, and I didn't make nearly enough to get through.
A couple of quick points..
- Tuition has gone up a LOT even since 2007.
- There are far fewer jobs to get, and those jobs are less flexible (since the employment situation means that employers can be pickier about people they take).
- There are fewer student jobs, because research funding is tighter (thanks, sequester!)
- Not all students have the ability to manage both a job and study. Just because you did it doesn't mean everyone can, and just because a student isn't brilliant doesn't mean they don't deserve an education.
- "Young white American male" has all sorts of implied privilege that not everyone has.
- Do we really want this to be the challenge?
Then who is going to put up the money to loan to students?
The government.
A loan agreement has to be mutually beneficial to both borrower and lender.
Government gives interest free loans, they get a highly educated populace who can afford to spend idiotic amounts of money, thus improving the economy and tax pool. The student gets a good education that leads to a better, healthier, happier life.
It's the definition of a win-win. Also, FWIW, the government isn't supposed to profit from doing it's job. That's kinda one major reason for the existence of government - to do the things that are not necessarily profitable, but must be done for the good of all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I've often wondered whether we're headed towards a model where even forms a LLC around themselves to get the same rules that companies have.
There was a day when a College education was affordable, and an enterprising student could work their way through college on a part time job. Then the government got involved providing federally guaranteed student loans. This enabled colleges to start raising tuition, because now students could finance their way through college. Today, any college that doesn't raise their tuition is simply leaving money on the table - they'd be fools not to raise rates. The horse has left the barn, and the race is on. There is no upper limit now to what colleges can charge for tuition because the loans are guaranteed.
Now, the political side of this is that conservatives never wanted the government involved in the first place, because government involvement always distorts the market (which is exactly what has happened). Progressives called the conservatives heartless because they wanted to deny education to the poor and underprivileged. Somehow this argument always seems to work - we want life easier today and never think about the consequences. (Progressives and conservatives exist in both parties, don't let anyone fool you into thinking this is a democrat/republican thing.)
Now we have the consequences: Tuition rates that are skyrocketing and it is now near impossible to go through college without taking on obscene levels of debt. Those who decried government involvement in the first place, would like to see government get out of the student loan business. The reaction is obvious: "You are anti-education! You are not for the poor and underprivileged!"
And so here we are, the way to stop it is to collapse the 'Government-Educational-Complex' - shouldn't be hard. The actual value of a college education is rapidly approaching nil, yet people are paying more and more for it. Government is always happy to enslave you to the debt, because then you'll always vote for the party who promises keeping rates low and/or forgiving your student loan debt. If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
That's usually the case.
People milking a system don't like their gravy trains derailed.
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.
Not only is all the responsibility put on the students, but they're the ones least able to be responsible. After all, they're freaking 18-25 years old. These are the stupidest years of life. And absolutely everyone they're supposed to trust, their parents, their teachers, their guidance counselor, their government, their future employers tell them "YOU MUST GO TO COLLEGE OR YOU WILL BE A FAILURE FOREVER." What the hell do people expect them to do?
And for so many necessary and supposedly "good" careers, a degree is mandatory. Good luck getting a job as a civil engineer without a civil engineering degree. Want to be a doctor? You kind of have to have that medical degree. "Life experience" doesn't count on an application to the hospital.
And even then, with the never-ending recession, even those with the degrees can't get full time work. I have a friend who finished dental school 2 years ago. Has her DDS, is good at what she does, $330,000 in debt, and can't get full-time work AS A DENTIST. When dentists can't get work, there is some shit seriously fucked up.
I thank my lucky stars I graduated in 2002 before this stuff got insane. But I honestly don't know what advice I'd give to a 17 year old today. Unless they can code. Otherwise? Probably trade school. Be a plumber. Trim carpentry is good, too.
But damn if that doesn't suck. I thought we were gonna be in the future now. Everybody would be building skyscrapers and curing cancer and designing space shuttles. But nope. Your options are join the military and go shoot brown people for oil, be a laborer, or saddle yourself with $100,000 in debt and be a barista. The future blows.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If you borrowed it, you should have to pay it back. It doesn't make any sense to allow people out from under their debts that they made the conscious decision to borrow. If you don't understand the total costs, how the lending and repayment processes work, or if you don't have any solid plans for living with that debt, you shouldn't be borrowing it. Period. I don't care if it's a mortgage, a car loan, a school loan, or even your neighbor's tools. Your borrowing choices and the repayments from those choices should always be your own responsibility.
Nevermind we tell them they're worthless unless they go to college (what you want to flip burgers your whole life?) and just say "oh well it pays for itself", and our schooling system doesn't teach how repayment processes work, what a promissory note is, how to choose a degree that will be in demand in 5 years (serious lol at this one), or how to find random part time jobs besides McD (crap pay) that can help you pay your way through college.
No, rather, they're supposed to just fabricate or synthesize that information for themselves out of thin air (if they could do that, they would be an entrepreneur and wouldn't need college).
Don't you also pay a 25% VAT on most goods and services? And even the lower rate for food is 12%? According to the Wikipedia, roughly 45-50% of your GDP goes into taxes and output government services. Total effective tax rates in the US are under 30%, even with our utterly ridiculous levels of military spending. We pay a *lot* less than you do.
I'm from Norway, not Sweden but I think your description is pretty accurate, on the other hand:
0-18: The state pays my parents for having me + free education.
19-24: Got a master's degree for free, just cost of living
25-62: Work, get taxed the shit out of but don't need health insurance, saving for my kids' college fund etc.
62-67: Potential forms of early pension, but will affect later pension
67-: Public pension, which is quite good if you've worked and paid taxes.
If you take the lifespan view you're probably not that bad off, you pay in a lot of taxes in the middle but overall the government pays for many years before and after that. Not everything goes into public services, a lot is also simply redistribution taxed one place and paid (or given tax breaks) another place. Cue the obvious commie comments, but it seems to be working rather well.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Everyone here does seem quick to say "Oh just do an ROI calculation on college and don't take it for granted you should go" without recalling that for decades now we've pretty much shoved the idea that "if you don't go to college you're a complete shit and failure of a human being (what are you gonna do, flip burgers? Because people who flip burgers are subhuman shit after all)" down everyone's throats, and most people don't want to be thought of as complete shit."
Over simplify much?
Everyone SHOULD be quick to say "do a ROI calc" as well as decide if they should even go to college. A plumber doesn't need a degree and they generally get paid exceptionally well. Also part of that calculation should include expected income in their chosen field. If they can expect to make $20k-$30k, maybe they shouldn't be taking out $50k in loans. Or maybe they should go to a less expensive school. I'm sorry -- if the market is saturated with art history majors, you may end up flipping burgers to pay off your loans. Hell, the market is saturated with lawyers right now. I know a few who are working as paralegals and are happy to have the work.
I have little sympathy for someone who took out $100k in student loans they can't pay back because they can't find work. I have a ton of sympathy for someone who took out less than $20k in loans and are struggling.
And since college-educated people earn more money and thus pay more taxes, you're entirely right: tax-funded education is not free, it's a net earner.
citation needed.
College attendance at record levels didn't improve the world economy that much. Never in history of the world there were so many students and we are in the middle of a downturn of epic proportions with unprecedented unemployment among the young. Apparently higher ed is not a silver bullet you think it is.
The reality is there are severe diminishing returns to education. There are only so many jobs that truly require a degree. Huge chunk of graduates don't work in their fields, which pretty much means they didn't really need their degree in the first place, except for getting though the HR. That's a bit expensive solution to the signaling problem. Most people study only to party for few years, star in CollegeGirlsGoneWind 'documentaries' and are as emptyheaded after as they were before.
If you are a retard after the high school, after 12 years of schooling, no amount of university classes will change that, it's too late for you.
If their governments pay for college out of tax money it's because the citizens who pay said taxes are okay with it.
democracy is a tyranny of majority so it's not all roses. 49% have no say how their money will be spent if 51% says so. Also in reality democracy works for 1 day in 4 years, for the remaining 4*365.25-1 govt does whatever it wants. If the US govt spends a lot of money on spying on its own citizens and on blowing up brown people around the world, are the citizens totally cool with it?
True story: I worked my way through college, because my dad died in my freshman year. One semester I was standing in line to write my tuition check for the courses I was taking, and the guy ahead of me received a check from the school to cover all of his expenses for the coming semester. He was a football player. WTF?
Of course, the school also had a special program set up for athletes, so that they could actually graduate with a B.S.. The "BS" was never more appropriate, and normal students were generally not allowed to sign up for these courses.
That one experience is probably the single biggest reason why I have never had any interest in continued contact with the school since graduating.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.