Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Students/Grads Carrying Over $1 Trillion In Debt

An anonymous reader writes "Time reports that American students and grads were carrying $1.08 trillion in student loan debt at the end of 2013. This compares to just $253 billion a decade earlier. Aggregate debt grew 10% in the past year alone. 'By comparison, overall debt grew just 43% in the last decade and 1.6% over the past year.' About 70% of students graduate with some amount of debt, and the average amount owed is $29,400. 'Delinquencies on student loans have risen dramatically over the past decade: 11.5 percent of graduates were at least 90 days late on paying back their loans at the end of 2013, compared with 6.2 percent delinquencies on student loans in 2003. Moreover, the Fed's figures on delinquencies hide more stark data: nearly half of all students with debt aren't currently in repayment thanks to deferments and forbearances and the fact that students are not expected to pay while they're in school.' An attached graph shows an alarming spike in delinquent loans that looks a bit like mortgage delinquencies did at the beginning of the sub-prime crisis."

351 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Tell me again... by PmanAce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much? It's not like you are getting a super special top notch education that is not comparable to top Canadian universities for example.

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    1. Re:Tell me again... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Canada is experiencing similar issues.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

    2. Re:Tell me again... by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much? It's not like you are getting a super special top notch education that is not comparable to top Canadian universities for example.

      The same reason health care costs so much: the more money that's made available, the higher the price that can be asked.

      In supply and demand terms, prices rise to balance the supply of education services with the demand for those services until demand is restrained or supply is increases.

      What's happened in education and health care tells us that supply isn't keeping up with demand and so we have rationing based on price to match supply with demand. High prices keep some out of school or out of the doctor's office so that the available services match those able to pay for them.

    3. Re:Tell me again... by Xicor · · Score: 1

      in most places, it isnt the college that is expensive, but the housing. i pay 3k per semester(which i guess is a little expensive) on tuition... i spend 600 a month on housing.

    4. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So why isn't supply responding to the glut of money? It's had decades.

    5. Re:Tell me again... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And Australia, and Spain and... is anyone surprised. Slavery is abolished, Long Live Modern Debt Slavery.

      See America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth

    6. Re:Tell me again... by fredprado · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nobody forces you to take a student loan. You can very well skip graduation and start working earlier. Graduation is an investment. If you think it is worth it go for it, otherwise it is not really necessary for a person to live or prosper.

    7. Re: Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BS. A degree is not required for a job. College is a systematic theft of future wages. There were decent paying jobs that required no degree.

    8. Re:Tell me again... by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should people who don't go to college and work earlier and like beasts of burden pay for other people's graduations through taxes. That is ridiculous and it is basically taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.

    9. Re:Tell me again... by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In some ways, it is, with online courses and such. But universities have a very long tradition, and have a guildlike system of prestige and accreditation, so it's very hard to shake them up

    10. Re:Tell me again... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Mostly because of entry barriers, many of them created by government regulations. It is not as if anybody could just open an University wherever and whenever he pleases.

    11. Re:Tell me again... by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      Which is still less than 1/5 of your costs. And?

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    12. Re:Tell me again... by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      How do community colleges that cost a fraction enter your equation???

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    13. Re:Tell me again... by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because every time the price goes up some politician has the brilliant idea to either 1) make loans more available or 2) make more "free money" (i.e. grants and subsidies) available.

      Since neither of those is "building new colleges" or "training new professors" the existing colleges snap up this money through higher fees. This eventually may result in some increased build-out, but it seems to go slowly enough that they can keep the prices rising faster than inflation.

      Worse, one of the ways in which they have "made loans more available" was to legislate that student loan debt cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    14. Re:Tell me again... by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It costs so much because people have been conditioned to be willing to pay anything for it, believing it is essential for future success. And if they can't afford it the government ensures that they can borrow for it. There's no way tuition can possibly go but up until this scenario changes.

    15. Re:Tell me again... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Why should people who don't go to college and work earlier and like beasts of burden pay for other people's graduations through taxes.

      To make a better world.

    16. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "nobody forces you to take student loan" is a common false choice being pushed on nearly all forums that bring up this enormous problem. If you think it is not a forced choice, you have not been paying attention...

    17. Re:Tell me again... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I think much of the increase cost is chaff. I hear TX A&M is planning a 1/2BELLION dollar football stadium. It will be used what 6 times a year? Dorm's used to be cinder block barracks. Now they have luxo condo's. I wonder if the jello salad has been replace with caviar. If the money was spent on education and not fluff, I suspect college would be about as expensive as it was 30 years ago. No one should be surprised though. When real housewives, kim k, and any other number of nobodies are heroes, why should we be surprised that education is now a vacation spa with sports entertainment.

    18. Re:Tell me again... by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much?

      Colleges need to adapt so that university education doesn't become too expensive for all.

      . In his book on administrative bloat, The Fall Of The Faculty, Johns Hopkins professor Benjamin Ginsberg reports that although student-faculty ratios fell slightly between 1975 and 2005, from 16-to-1 to 15-to-1, the student-to-administrator ratio fell from 84-to-1 to 68-to-1, and the student-to-professional-staff ratio fell from 50-to-1 to 21-to-1. Ginsberg concludes: "Apparently, when colleges and universities had more money to spend, they chose not to spend it on expanding their instructional resources, i.e. faculty. They chose, instead, to enhance their administrative and staff resources."

      And when they had less money to spend, they did the same thing.

      Administrator Hiring Drove 28% Boom in Higher-Ed Work Force, Report Says

      University Administrative Glut Worse Than We Thought

      Over the last 25 years the number of administrative employees at U.S. colleges and universities more than doubled, according to a joint study by the New England Center of Investigative Reporting and the American Institutes for Research. The ratio of nonacademic positions to faculty positions doubled at both public and private institutions. Overall, the industry has added an average of 87 administrative positions per day, a rate has scarcely slowed since the economic downturn, despite tuition increases. Even more surprising, academic institutions have added more administrative employees despite part-time faculty taking on more teaching duties than full-time professors.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Tell me again... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      They don't. I'm can't even fathom how you came up with that conclusion

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    20. Re: Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Education isn't about "complexity" or "sophistication" required in a job. Having a degree is an indication to the HR of the company you interview with that you're mentally stable enough to put up for long periods of time with a system of arbitrary regulations and useless effort in exchange for very little.

    21. Re:Tell me again... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      its pretty simple really

      Colleges have a guarenteed payment from the feds, they dont care if we graduate or not only if we enroll. They have no reason to shrink the costs when they know the gov will pay them whatever they want

      Its more complected than just that but thats a good start. when you have the backing of the feds, you will buy the 500$ hammer instead of the 5$ one

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    22. Re: Tell me again... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      There still are. North dakota is having trouble filling high paying jobs as we speak

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    23. Re: Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need a degree to get past the autoHR algorithms, because someone without a degree is useless or something.

    24. Re:Tell me again... by farrellj · · Score: 1

      It's another bubble, and we shall see who is going to suffer when the education bubble bursts. I know students who would have to work half their lifetime to pay back the "student debt", but the same universities are attending have dramatically cut the number of tenured profs, while "part time" profs and TAs have to cover more and more of delivering the course load...and are purposely kept at "part time" status to the point they school will drop courses to make sure they don't work more than the number of hours the law says you must treat them as full time staff.

      Universities, like governments, should not be run like companies, since education suffers when you do so.

      --
      CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    25. Re:Tell me again... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      That is a very good question. I don't think I've ever seen a study that has explored this in any depth.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    26. Re:Tell me again... by Berkyjay · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, either go to school to get a normal job or become a Walmart or McDonald's drone working for the minimum and collecting food stamps. You and everyone else around you convince yourself that if you work hard and get a good job you can easily afford the loans. But working hard usually means that you can barely work on the side to make a living. So then you're forced to take loans out just to cover living expenses. So you work hard, bust your ass and end up with a butt load of loans and no guarantee that your hard work will produce enough income to cover the massive amount of debt you incurred. The smart thing that I've been telling my nieces and nephews is to look at college as something you do in your 20's. Go to community college on your own money and take your time. Work your way into a better school and try to get as many grants as possible. Then by the time you're 26-27 you might get into state and only have a year or so to get a bachelor's. The you can work your way into grad school. The trick is to not feel the pressure to get school over quickly and to get all of the filler stuff out of the way on your own dime. Wait until grad school to take out loans or hopefully you'll have performed well enough to earn your way through grants. It works, I have a good friend do exactly that. Zero debt. It just sucks that I never figured this out sooner.

    27. Re:Tell me again... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      well as for the stadium, it will be used more than 6 times a year, it will have maybe 6 A&M football games, but it will be rented out for other things throughout the rest of the year, at least thats how it works where i went to school. Also texas a&m can spend that on a stadium because they can afford it with the exploitation I mean sale of their athletic apparel

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    28. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two words - financial aid.

      Once the government got in the business of sending "everyone" to college, of course prices were going to go up.

    29. Re:Tell me again... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much?

      It mainly boils down to the greed of corporate America. Just look at the salaries of football coaches at schools with large football programs. Then compare their salary to that of the folks in charge of the educational side of things. How is it that a glorified gym teacher makes more money, in what is supposed to be an institution of higher education? Or look at the scholarships that are given to the players. It all comes down to how much money the sports programs bring in, and nothing to do with education.

      It's unbelievable how profitable many schools are on realestate and other investments. But that money doesn't go into lowering tuition costs. It goes into more investments to make more money. We've become very short sighted in America. CEO's apply strategies that generate large quarterly profit at the expense of the long term health of the company. We seem to be applying the same principles to our education systems in the US now too.

    30. Re:Tell me again... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not necessary. I got out of college with so little debt I paid it off in six months after getting a job. The people who make the most noise are the ones who made poor decisions.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re: Tell me again... by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Chasing the latest gold rush is not really a career plan for an individual, much less a solution for the decline of the American middle class. The money isn't even that great once you factor in the "frontier" prices: "Rent in North Dakota City Exceeds New York, Los Angeles."

      As much as fortunes have declined for college-educated Americans in the last few decades, people aren't taking these loans because they're stupid - blue collar has fared much worse.

    32. Re:Tell me again... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Canada is not 1/5.

      McGill vs. say Rutgers is a 25% difference.

    33. Re:Tell me again... by harperska · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. If you just expect to get a trade job, then yes a degree is worthless. But there are many fields that require advanced degrees because the knowledge required for those fields is only obtainable through years of education, such as medicine and engineering.

    34. Re:Tell me again... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Nobody forces you to take a student loan. You can very well skip graduation and start working earlier. Graduation is an investment. If you think it is worth it go for it, otherwise it is not really necessary for a person to live or prosper."

      It's not like it probably was when you were a student. Depending on when that is, of course.

      Compared to when I first went to college, there is less actual "grant" money available for financial aid. As for loans, less of them are direct loans, and lot higher percentage of the loan money is now through banks. The interest rates have gone way up -- in an economy with close to 0% prime interest rate! Repayment must be started sooner, accrued interest is higher, and the repayment terms are usually not as easy as they were in the past.

      Add that to the huge increases in tuition and fees, and you have yourself a real problem. Bush and Obama both promised to help people get a higher education but they have done just the opposite.

    35. Re:Tell me again... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So why isn't supply responding to the glut of money? It's had decades.

      Accreditation is a legally-sanctioned cartel.

      I followed a small startup school for a while in the mid 90's - they tried for years to get accreditation as college and ultimately folded because they could not get it. The education was fine, but they dared to allow students to take classes online (c.1996) which was seen as too much of a threat to the cartel.

      A degree from a non-accredited school is maligned, so without a marketable service they had to go out of business.

      So: "because the politicians want it that way" is the actual answer to your question.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    36. Re:Tell me again... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They don't. I'm can't even fathom how you came up with that conclusion

      Maybe he came up with that conclusion because its been well understood for decades, that both the rich and the poor subsidize the middle classes higher education.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    37. Re:Tell me again... by Albanach · · Score: 2

      Crap. There's a ton of evidence to show a well educated workforce is good for the entire economy. All you do by crating a high entry price is make it easier to keep those who are poor, whom you claim to care about, in their existing situation.

    38. Re: Tell me again... by type40 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There still are. North dakota is having trouble filling high paying jobs as we speak

      That and the highest rent in the nation. Unless you're living in company housing the cost of living in the Bakken is higher than NYC or San Francisco. And there's the fact that to have live IN North Dakota to work those jobs. The AMBIENT temp was -22F at my house last night. Yeah you'll make $80k-$100k a year, but you'll earn it.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    39. Re:Tell me again... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much? It's not like you are getting a super special top notch education that is not comparable to top Canadian universities for example.

      Because someone else is paying the bill, at least at the time of purchase.

    40. Re:Tell me again... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I know students who would have to work half their lifetime to pay back the "student debt", but the same universities are attending have dramatically cut the number of tenured profs, while "part time" profs and TAs have to cover more and more of delivering the course load...and are purposely kept at "part time" status to the point they school will drop courses to make sure they don't work more than the number of hours the law says you must treat them as full time staff.

      And at the same time, the executives who run the universities are being paid ever more.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    41. Re:Tell me again... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      American colleges are in a competitive arms race to attract more customers. The easy solution is to dump money into glitzy things like athletics and a construction spree of gold plated facilities. That money comes from foreign rich kids parents and from taxpayer subsidies for the rest.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    42. Re:Tell me again... by khallow · · Score: 1

      So why isn't supply responding to the glut of money?

      It is. For example, total enrollment in college went from 8.6 million students in 1970 to 19.1 million in 2010. Also, female enrollment rates have gone up a lot. So supply more than doubled over that time period.

    43. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      And yet, costs have not re-normalized to meet that new reality. So either that more than doubling is a weak response at best or somehow the re-balancing of supply and demand hasn't been allowed to bring prices back down ass theory would predict.

    44. Re:Tell me again... by type40 · · Score: 1

      A few more details would give you more credibly on this topic. If you were working 60 hour weeks during the summer waiting tables and working as a male escort during the year to pay tuition, yeah, your criticism is valid. (OK, your situation probably wasn't this extreme but you get the point.) However, if your grandmother left you a chunk of cash that covered tuition and all you had to cover was living expenses, you can STFU.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    45. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, but accreditation is a non-issue if an existing school expands.

    46. Re:Tell me again... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      A few more details would give you more credibly on this topic.

      You can go your own research and find out that college can be affordable, so I don't care if you think I'm credible on the topic. Therefore, fuck you, QED, sir.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    47. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It costs so much because people have been conditioned to be willing to pay anything for it, believing it is essential for future success. And if they can't afford it the government ensures that they can borrow for it. There's no way tuition can possibly go but up until this scenario changes.

      In the 1960s and 1970s a university degree (BA or BS) guaranteed a graduate life-time employment beginning the day after graduation in many cases. By the 1980s the university degree was no longer a guarantee of employment especially in the midst of a recession which lasted from mid-decade into the early 1990s. Then towards the end of the 1990s a university degree became the equivalent of a high school diploma in terms of minimum qualifications for almost every job across every sector of the work force. Now as we live through the 2000s the value of a university degree is nothing more than a way for human resources departments to disqualify applicants. Employers expect schools to teach job skills because these same employers refuse to provide on-the-job training (OJT) unlike prior decades. Flooding the marketplace with foreign labour has further diminished wages to the point of economic stagnation and even decline in some countries.

    48. Re:Tell me again... by rts008 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No kidding.
      I was working at OSU (Oklahoma State University) about 4-5 years ago when the annual raises came out.[1]

      The 'President', Hargis got a raise of a little over $150,000.00 a year. He was already making a 7 figure salary, while the faculty got a 2-3% raise, and the staff got none.(again, after not getting a raise for 3 years previously)

      [1] I had been working there several years at this point, and still work there, but no longer(as of Feb. 09, 2014) as an OSU employee, they subcontracted out the dept. I work for(Custodial and Housekeeping) to save money, Pres. Hargis has recieved a minimum of 5% raise each year, while staff and most faculty salaries remain frozen, or 2% maximum.
      When I was hired, they had to give me a raise within 2 months due to the minimum wage going up from $6.90/hr to $7.25/hr. As of the Feb. takeover, I was making $8.25/hr after almost 6 years there.(before everyone started leaving due to the 'takeover', I was only making $7.65/hr-my pay had only gone up $0.40/hr over 5+ years there. After a lot of people started leaving, they gave us remaining fools a substancial(compared to what we were used to) raise to encourage us to stay.(I got bumped from $7.65/hr to $8.25/hr then) We have been at %50 (or less) of req'd. manpower since mid-May 2013. We(OSU) just completed a several million dollar 'campus beuatification' upgrade, amid a lot of other new multi-million dollar construction projects, including the new Boone Pickens Stadium that made news(even front page on slashdot!) recently for being 'unfriendly' to scouts and media.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    49. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I got through college debt free the hard way, working after school in highschool, working a full time job and a part time job in college, graduated in six years, now I'm 35 have a great job with great pay and haven't had a date since senior homecoming and haven't got a fucking clue on social skills not relevant for dealing with bosses or customers.

      Your way sounds better. At my age I'll probably marry into kids, but I'll treat them as my own and I'll tell them this is the way to get through college.

    50. Re:Tell me again... by r1348 · · Score: 2

      Let me rephrase it: "Higher education should be for the rich only".

    51. Re:Tell me again... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Because they are run as an 'educational institution' mindset, instead of a 'for profit corp.' mindset.

      Yes, that is a broad generalization, but applicable for this discussion. (there will always be exceptions, in other words)

      'mc6809e' is just projecting his views on the discussion, not that he/she is looking at the whole picture.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    52. Re:Tell me again... by khallow · · Score: 1

      And yet, costs have not re-normalized to meet that new reality. So either that more than doubling is a weak response at best or somehow the re-balancing of supply and demand hasn't been allowed to bring prices back down ass theory would predict.

      I agree with you here. As others have noted, the accreditation system is a big obstacle to supply meeting demand. I'd wager that most of this growth is in established campuses which don't have to try very hard to keep accreditation.

      But it's also in the nature of the various loan programs. I doubt schools could arbitrarily increase their costs from year to year without losing access to the loan programs.

    53. Re:Tell me again... by NapalmV · · Score: 1

      You must have a pretty miserable life if you're looking at it in no other way than from a ROI perspective.

    54. Re:Tell me again... by pouar · · Score: 1

      It's not. I've been to San Jacinto college, and their programming classes sucked. Advanced C++ my ass.

      --
      while :;do if windows sucks;then mv windows /dev/null;pacman -Sy linux;fi;done
    55. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Degrees aren't worthless. You have to do papers, and work with teams and in a structured environment. There's a lot of non-academic skills taught at college. Yes, even with a philosophy degree.

    56. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The poor pay little in taxes, and don't subsidize anything for the middle class.

    57. Re:Tell me again... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, if you think it is a forced choice, then you're just an idiot. I graduate this May, and haven't accrued a single red cent in student debt, and the only work I've done is as a paid intern during one particular summer.

      What's stupid is I've often had both the government and the university encourage me multiple times to pick up the student loans (which would have given me $9k in cash per year) and all I had to do to receive them was not uncheck a little box on an online form. Yes, they were quite literally opt-out in my case, and every time I had to renew my university grants and uncheck that box, I would always get numerous emails for months afterwards warning me that my student loans are unclaimed.

      As a matter of fact, the FAFSA and University grants were both in excess of my tuition and books costs by about $1,500 every semester, so I effectively got paid to go to school. Most of my peers however are taking out loans...why they do this is beyond me, especially when here in Arizona you can live rather comfortably on $400 a month and don't spend all of your money on stupid bars and clubs.

      In fact, I'd love to see a study done on what people actually spend this loan money on, because I'm betting that tuition and books don't figure into it in most cases. In fact I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if a lot of it is spent on "partying," which in maintaining a 4.0 GPA myself I've never found the time to do.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    58. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, schools can lose accreditation for expanding.

    59. Re:Tell me again... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1, Troll

      In fact, here's a nice anecdote of how these so called "student" loans are being spent:

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    60. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Dorm's used to be cinder block barracks.

      Used to be? Law and Puryear may have been torn down, but Walton and Hart are still up and available.

      http://reslife.tamu.edu/reshalls/ramp

      The dorms don't lose money, even the nice ones. Of course, they cost more than the cinder block barracks.

      I wonder if the jello salad has been replace with caviar.

      Go drop past Sbisa and see what's on offer. Last I tried the food (about 20 years ago), the luxo condos had the same meal plan. So live in luxo, and eat in the 1912 military dining hall.

    61. Re:Tell me again... by Snotnose · · Score: 2

      I spent 8 years working full time and going to school part time. Not a single cent of debt was incurred.

    62. Re:Tell me again... by guevera · · Score: 1

      which means $2400 a semester on housing, or $7200 a year. Not too terrible, depending on where you're at. So, why are you bitching about housing prices? Is it just 'cuz you actually see the bills instead of having 'em taken out of your financial aid award?

    63. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not at A&M. The stadium holds more people than the area around the university (at least, when I was last there). They don't let the soccer team play on it. It's sacred. Football only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

      And I was surprised to hear they were planning a "new" stadium, but reading up, it looks like it's just a $500 million upgrade to the existing stadium. That makes more sense, as the 85,000 stadium has seen crowds over 90,000.

    64. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Also, the states used to pay much of the cost of state universities. Then the economy slowed, and education is always the first to get the ax when budgets are tight (and by tight, I mean heavily in debt).

    65. Re:Tell me again... by hazem · · Score: 1

      i spend 600 a month on housing.
      What's the housing situation in your town/city for non-students? I'm not saying that college housing isn't a racket (it's often the most profitable part of the college), would you be able to get room and board with utilities for $600 elsewhere?

    66. Re:Tell me again... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I wasnt referring to other sports but conventions/concerts things of that nature. Football players would never share their field with soccer players if given the option thats just normal

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    67. Re:Tell me again... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      "nobody forces you to take student loan" is a common false choice being pushed on nearly all forums that bring up this enormous problem. If you think it is not a forced choice, you have not been paying attention...

      My daughter did four years at LSU without a single student loan. Graduated debt-free.

      Back in the day, my wife and I went to college, worked our way through, graduated with no student debt.

      Yes, it's certainly possible. You might have to skip Harvard/MIT/whatever Ivy League school tickles your fancy, but it's generally possible if you're willing to make the effort.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    68. Re:Tell me again... by ranton · · Score: 1

      No, schools can lose accreditation for expanding.

      They can, but rarely do. If University of Phoenix is still accredited then you probably have to actually kill your students to lose it.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    69. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is not likely. The few that have expanded have done just fine. I seriously doubt that if Harvard opens a second campus that they will be dis-accredited.

    70. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      But it's also in the nature of the various loan programs. I doubt schools could arbitrarily increase their costs from year to year without losing access to the loan programs.

      Evidence suggests they can do exactly that. I don't know of any accredited school anywhere that is not eligible to participate in student loans.

      There's a lot of schools that are well respected and unlikely to lose accreditation that apparently are not doing much expanding in spite of market forces that one would expect to cause an explosive expansion.

      Certainly, higher education seems not to act like a market is expected to act.

    71. Re:Tell me again... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Evidence suggests they can do exactly that. I don't know of any accredited school anywhere that is not eligible to participate in student loans.

      Why would a school deliberately try to lose either accreditation or eligibility for student loans? Just because they aren't accidentally or deliberately running into these limits, doesn't mean that the limits don't exist. For example, I doubt a program could just double their tuition costs overnight and still expect to be covered by the various loan programs.

    72. Re:Tell me again... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      The structured, rigid environment is part of the problem for some people. Furthermore, you hardly need to have a piece of paper to have worked in teams or have done papers. Since knowledge doesn't exist only in colleges and universities, you could do all of this on your own if you're not an unmotivated, unintelligent loser.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    73. Re:Tell me again... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      If you want people to be "well-educated," you definitely shouldn't be schooling them; that only provides a mediocre education at best, and an awful one at worst. Sadly, though, it'll probably have to do; most people aren't intelligent enough to be "well-educated," anyway.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    74. Re: Tell me again... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      I know that there are many worthless employers/HR drones who require you to have degrees before they'll even look at you, but there do exist ones who will actually test your knowledge. That approach also has the benefit (I'm told) of eliminating 99% of college graduates, as they have no idea what they're doing, anyway.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    75. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard of any such things at Kyle Field, but maybe there are some, they didn't show up under "other events" on the Wiki page.

    76. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The AMA is the biggest accreditation nazi when it comes to this, but I've heard of other issues some places have faced.

    77. Re:Tell me again... by Xicor · · Score: 1

      my point was simply that the expensive part is housing, not the tuition itself. if you go to a community college to get all your core classes out of the way, you can get yourself a degree with a little more than $10k in tuition at a decent school. the problem is, during this time period, if you have to pay for an apartment, you end up having to pay en extra 30k almost on housing. your $10k bill is now $40k. this is not the problem of the schools or the education system, this is a problem of the cost of housing.

    78. Re:Tell me again... by Xicor · · Score: 1

      you can get them a little more expensive with utilities nearby off campus for the same quality. if you want a crap apartment though, they have those around for half the price

    79. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me know next time you consent to treatment by a self-taught surgeon.

    80. Re:Tell me again... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The poor pay little in federal taxes

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    81. Re:Tell me again... by HuguesT · · Score: 2

      Ornamental subjects like dentistry? Please read the article before making such comments. Cheers.

    82. Re:Tell me again... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I spent 8 years working full time and going to school part time. Not a single cent of debt was incurred.

      I spent four years going to school while working part time on a job related to my major, and receiving a military scholarship. When I graduated, I had a three year service commitment to the US Marine Corps, but was otherwise debt free. Nobody "has" to go into debt. There are plenty of other options, although none of them involve getting everything you want on a silver platter.

    83. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I doubt they would raise cost specifically to become ineligible, but I doubt the Ivy League schools are terribly concerned if poor kids can't get a loan to go there.

      But no need to drag faith and beliefs into this:, apparently there are limits on how much an individual student may borrow, but not on how much the school can charge. See this.

    84. Re:Tell me again... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The finest schools have always been expensive, but US higher education as a whole was reasonably priced until the microsecond that the federal government began guaranteeing student loans. No more scratching for scholarships or hoping to find a preference category that would get you a free ride. It's as though everyone was handed a no-limit credit card to spend on college. As soon as schools figured that out, tuitions went exponential.

      Another way of putting it is that right now, everybody is majoring in South Sea tulip bulbs bought on margin over the Internet. Look out below!

    85. Re:Tell me again... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt it is used for anything except real games. The UT stadium is not even used for practice. They have a separate climate controlled facility for that. And as I understand it, A&M's program is not profitable even with the book cookin universities use for their precious athletic programs. Only Ohio state and UT are profitable on the books. And that profitability is tied to compulsory "fees" charged to all students. All this loses my main point though. If you are a student getting thru school on loans, which most students are, then the school should be trying to maximize the student's education while minimizing costs. A better dorm or football team is not going to make for better english majors, doctors, lawyers etc.

    86. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nobody said it was the only place to do that, but that it's taken as proof of having done it.

    87. Re:Tell me again... by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, the FAFSA and University grants were both in excess of my tuition and books costs by about $1,500 every semester, so I effectively got paid to go to school. Most of my peers however are taking out loans...why they do this is beyond me

      Uh, maybe not everyone can get those kind of grants?

    88. Re:Tell me again... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Wall Street Journal did it best:
      http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

      Or, if you just want it in simple graphic form:
      http://si.wsj.net/public/resou...

      --
      -Styopa
    89. Re:Tell me again... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      ... 600/mo is pretty standard around here. I don't know where you are, maybe that's high for rent + utilities + whatever other services you get, but it would be considered quite reasonable many places. I pay more than that on rent alone, and live not far from a university campus

      Also, with the prices you game, tuition still comes out to be more than housing. Just saying...

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    90. Re:Tell me again... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      That's true. But given the number of college students who have no idea what they're doing, I'd be hesitant to take a degree as proof of anything important. But I'll admit that many employers do take it as proof.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    91. Re:Tell me again... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Meh, I'e had a successful career without college. It's a bitch finding that first professional job, but after that college really stops mattering.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    92. Re:Tell me again... by khallow · · Score: 1

      apparently there are limits on how much an individual student may borrow, but not on how much the school can charge

      Thanks for the link. I wonder if those limits get adjusted each year for education-related inflation?

      This reminds me of the NASA New Start Inflation Index. It's supposed to be an estimate of inflation particular to aerospace projects that NASA is involved with. The problem comes in that it also gets used to adjust costs estimates for future NASA projects which in turn affects the index in the future. As a result there's a feedback in the index that causes it to grow faster than normal producer inflation by a great amount.

    93. Re: Tell me again... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes your obviously unique stiuation

      Obviously uniquely shared by thousands of fellow students.

      Everyone should go to your school and pay no effictive Tuition.

      Protip: that means you're paying a lot less money as a result. Maybe everyone should be going to schools like that.

    94. Re: Tell me again... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No..lol. Too many jobs require simply degrees and they don't give a rats ass about what they are in. I worked for a company and most the employees dispatching trucks had degrees in elementary education or physical education. We joked that the top boss was finely educated in underwater basket weaving from the best schools around the world as the computers did 90% of the work.

      Years ago, companies used to administer competency tests to it's prospective hires. If you passed, you had enough knowledge to do what they needed done and was considered a possible candidate. This is still somewhat done with the civil service exams administered before you are eligible for certain government jobs (even some not considered to be in the civil service). Those tests however fell out of favor when a couple people started using them to discriminate based on race and gender so the high school diploma became a standard decree that you possessed a certain amount of skills. Then the schools started going to shit- people who weren't educationally competent graduating based on attendance and not performance or knowledge retention- so this eventually lead to college degrees serving the same purpose.

      In all of this, schools with reputations became a standard higher then those without which is largely where the "where you go to school matters" comes from. The reason degrees are needed revolve around the failings of primary and secondary education more then anything. People are finding that now degrees from common schools are scoffed at and unless you come from one of the schools with a reputation, you need actual job experience under that degree in order for it to mean something.

      However, in a high unemployment time, employers can be extremely picky about who they employ making this point harder to find experience in order to get a job using your degrees. Its even worse when you have a lack of employment in your recent history. However, in times of low unemployment, employers will hire people without degrees based on their employment history with other companies. Holding the same job for 2 years or more meant stability and was a major plus back when unemployment was low. Now it's almost a necessity if you want a paycheck.

    95. Re:Tell me again... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Sure, but accreditation is a non-issue if an existing school expands.

      But constrained supply is beneficial for the incumbents - all cartels take advantage of that. It's the upstart competitors in a free market that drive down prices.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    96. Re:Tell me again... by Xicor · · Score: 2

      the idea is to get your core classes out of the way for 100$ a class at a community college, and then just pay for your last 4 semesters

    97. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 2

      And that is why we have the obligation to regulate the costs. Doing away with accreditation isn't really an option since it was an anti-fraud measure whose purpose still exists.

    98. Re:Tell me again... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I could agree with you on the decreased state funding if costs were only rising in proportion to the decreases. OF course that isn't happening so while what you suggest might be part of the problem, it certainly doesn't explain it.

    99. Re:Tell me again... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A google search showed this little treat.

      http://wtaw.com/2013/07/11/cs-...

      I don't know if it is currently used for conventions but it seems that specific funding was made available with the express intent of using the new stadium for conventions and similar activities at a reduced rate. So maybe that is part of the plan for the renovations or something.

    100. Re:Tell me again... by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 1

      When did your daughter graduate? Based on the fact that you tried to use yourself and your wife as an example, I have to ask, because those times have changed (see the part where $253 billion turned into $1.08 trillion). State schools are slowly being defunded and tuitions for their students are rising, too.

    101. Re:Tell me again... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The glorified gym teacher gets paid with money generated by the sports programs that also pays for other glorified gym teachers and scholarships for students. Interestingly enough, those that spend money on the sport programs do so voluntarily and not as a condition of tuition or tax. The money for the sport programs are largely isolated from the educational funding of the schools and in the case of large programs, almost completely isolated and self sufficient.

      The only way your outrage makes sense is if we ignore that.

      As for the real estate and investments, I completely agree with you. But one of the causes of the CEO's seeking quarterly profits instead of long term health of the company comes down to tax strategies. When CEOs are paid in part by stock options and bonuses that avoid regular income taxes and instead are committed to capital gains taxes, its severely advantageous to take less pay and more options and bonuses because you get to keep more in the end. When you hear of CEOs making 500 million a year, it is not salary but salary, bonuses, and stock options combined. They call it performance based pay.

    102. Re:Tell me again... by Nephandus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You call that debt free?!

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    103. Re:Tell me again... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It doesnt, if you go instate. An undergrad at UVA would set you back around $50k.

      It's not like you are getting a super special top notch education

      Tell that to all the international students I see in DC.

    104. Re:Tell me again... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Or you could-- and this is a really novel idea-- go in-state, to those colleges your parents taxes have been paying for for so many decades.

      But thats not in vogue: going to a school that costs double (or more!) just to get away from the parents is totally a good financial decision. Bonus points if your $25k / semester school gets you a useless degree that has zero job profits.

    105. Re:Tell me again... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      In many states you can attend a local state school for roughly the amount of money you can make working weekends as a waiter.

      My degree cost $30k, and by all rights i spent far too much, and paid it back in 2 years. Im returning for a better degree, and its ~$100 per credit/hr. Top end schools in my state are $400 / credit/hr-- that includes UVa.

    106. Re:Tell me again... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its hilarious to me that this discussion is divided between people who think its not possible to attend school without massive debt, and those who have done it.

    107. Re: Tell me again... by kenh · · Score: 1

      ...one of them must be right! ;^)

      --
      Ken
    108. Re:Tell me again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The community is paying A&M for access to "Texas A&M facilities", not specifically Kyle field, and nothing in the wording I read indicated anyone expected to be able to use Kyle field to anything, just make use of the MSC and other "facilities" as a convention center.

    109. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suck my dick you smarmy fuck. I never qualified for FAFSA because my parents were members of the disappearing middle class.

      They couldn't even afford to go to the movies and Uncle Sam expected them to pony up $40k per child for education? Over the past decade I've avoided student loans by working full-time and taking community college classes on a part time basis. Meanwhile, I have to breathe the same air as gutter-trash who get their rent paid by Uncle Sam to study underwater basket weaving full-time on my parents tax-dollars.

      It's not even thinly veiled redistribution of wealth and then you end up with tone-deaf welfare babies making ignorant posts on Slashdot about how easy it is to afford college.

      CLUE ALERT: If your education was paid for by someone else, you have zero credibility to talk about how easy, or difficult it is to pay for school(cause you didn't).

    110. Re:Tell me again... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what you're saying is because you're one of the unicorn-rare minority of people who actually got enough scholarships and grants to go to school the entire rest of the nation must just be making shit up to cover for their laziness and greed? Yeah, great argument there dumbass.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    111. Re:Tell me again... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Well you can already stop the half-assed assumptions. While I go to a state university, it isn't ASU, and getting into the schools you mentioned is often more about who you know than what you know, not to mention I'm the wrong color (your chances of getting admitted into them if you're white or asian are quite reduced thanks to affirmative action.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    112. Re:Tell me again... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An overwhelming majority of students go to local state community colleges and universities, once again your argument basically boils down to the circular conclusion that if someone wasn't as lucky as you it MUST be some kind of personal failure. You're starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    113. Re:Tell me again... by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, the FAFSA and University grants were both in excess of my tuition and books costs by about $1,500 every semester,

      What are these "university grants" of which you speak?

      (Disclaimer - I was paid to go to university in 1977-1980, UK, but I was under the impression that this system no longer exists).

      Reading up on it it seems that "FAFSA" is very like the system that used to exist in the UK when I was in education.

      Now I'm confused.

    114. Re:Tell me again... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The people who make the most noise are the ones who made poor decisions.

      They're preyed upon by counselors seeking job security, and led to make decisions the counselors know are poor in order to fill classes. If you defraud someone in business they can sue you for damages. The colleges regularly defraud students on the value of an education, or even a particular course of study.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    115. Re:Tell me again... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are plenty of other options, although none of them involve getting everything you want on a silver platter.

      Yeah, you could sign up to kill brown people in the sand for the profit of US corporations. That would certainly save you some money, and it would only require you to live without rights for four or more years, maybe a lot more if you're subjected to a euphemistically-named "stop-loss" program (aka slavery.) You could then face the >90% chance of being sexually assaulted as a female, or the apparently also very high chance of it happening as a male, and you could get discharged with inadequate medical care for a condition developed while in the service. What a fantastic and moral deal!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    116. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      The FAFSA is a form where you declare your income, the income of the biological parent you're living with, and the income of whoever they're married to. If any of those aren't willing to declare their income and sign the form then you don't get financial aid until you're 25 or something like that (so treat your step-parent nicely!).

      If the combined incomes are low enough that you basically fall below the poverty line and nobody owns any assets (rent house, or have it mortgaged to about 120% of its value, or live on street), then you can qualify for government grants.

      Otherwise they offer you great deals on loans that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and which can only be refinanced exactly once (interest rate drops again after that? poor you...).

      The system is awful for a bunch of reasons:
      1. Kids who would really benefit from college often can't go to top-notch schools because their parents aren't ultra-wealthy, and aren't willing to basically wipe out all their savings to pay for them to go. Often the student loans alone don't get you there. The very best students can get non-need-based scholarships which helps.
      2. Poor kids who wouldn't benefit much from college get to go on the taxpayer dime.
      3. Almost everybody who goes to college does it on somebody else's dime, and doesn't take it nearly as seriously as they should as a result.
      4. All the government loans help to prop up insane levels of university waste.

      I'm all for providing access to college to any student likely to benefit from it (they consistently do well in school, have a decent understanding of what they want to do after college, and have actually begun to pursue that career in practical ways before going to college). The problem today is that we throw a lot of money at the problem and really the only ones who make out well are the colleges themselves. They're basically the ones selling pickaxes in a gold rush.

    117. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I spent 8 years working full time and going to school part time. Not a single cent of debt was incurred.

      When?

      Tuitions are rising much faster than inflation, and have been for 20 years. I incurred only a little debt but that was back in the early 90s and I qualified for merit-based scholarships. If I were in the same situation today I'd probably be facing a LOT more debt.

      Also, it makes no sense to have kids doing unskilled labor for 8 years when they could just focus on their studies and be doing something more productive much sooner. Working full time while taking classes can also be a major distraction. These days it won't get you that far anyway, as it is hard to make more than minimum wage without some kind of degree or certification.

    118. Re:Tell me again... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Tell me again why college in the US costs sooooo much?

      It's a business, markets almost exclusively to young and inexperienced, and has arranged for them to easily borrow lots and lots and lots of money.

      Businessmen are greedy, bureaucrats are stupid, and kids get caught in the middle.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    119. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And that is why we have the obligation to regulate the costs. Doing away with accreditation isn't really an option since it was an anti-fraud measure whose purpose still exists.

      If that were the case then the accreditation should be issued by the government, in accordance with policies set by the legislature.

      The current system is steeped in tradition. If you want to change the basic curriculum, no accreditation. If you want to change how courses are delivered, no accreditation, and so on.

      Really the way it should work is that transcripts should be honest, and that's about it. Employers can look at the transcripts and decide if somebody has what it takes.

      Ironically with grade inflation transcripts are anything but honest despite accreditation. Parents paying $20k/semester expect passing grades, and they get them.

    120. Re: Tell me again... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously uniquely shared by thousands of fellow students.

      ...In a country of 300 million people.

      Maybe everyone should be going to schools like that.

      Maybe everyone should do the responsible thing and simply not go to college if they can't afford it without debt. Surely the genius of free market will figure out how to run a modern economy with population not educated beyond high school level. The rest of the world can watch and learn from the inevitable success, thus refuting the socialist notion of state-subsidized higher education once and for all.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    121. Re:Tell me again... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      It's supply and demand- or, the "David Beckham" factor, if you will.

      Put simply, people want a degree from Harvard or Yale. It doesn't matter if other universities are just as good or even better at actually providing an education- what people want is the word "Harvard" printed at the top of their degree certificate. This is extremely valuable, and everyone wants it. Meanwhile, Harvard is the only organisation in the word who are allowed to issue certificates with "Harvard" written on them.

      So, you have intense demand, and extremely limited supply. Assuming you don't use the law to regulate the price in some way, market forces will dictate that the only way is up for that price. It becomes a straight out bidding war for a few thousand places for a few million potential applicants- which means the price will settle out at "the maximum that the 1000 richest applicants and their families can afford". Which is a lot.

      (The "David Beckham" factor because, similarly, a top athlete is in high demand from all of the very rich sports team, and supply is extremely limited- there is only one David Beckham. Supply can't increase to meet demand, so you end up with athletes being paid terrifyingly high fees- the most that the richest team can afford).

      In Britain, our university fees (for domestic students) are capped at £9,000 per year. This is the only thing stopping the same thing happening to Oxford/Cambridge/UCL/etc., and is a Good Thing. The only debate in the UK is whether £9k is too high and should be lowered, not whether caps should be removed and prices surrendered to the open market.

    122. Re:Tell me again... by r1348 · · Score: 1

      I agree, but the selection should be through meritocracy, not income.

    123. Re:Tell me again... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you couldn't qualify for the military and are jealous of those who are fitter, tougher and smarter than you.

      My father was a marine. Apparently, one less brainwashed than yourself. He told me not to enlist, it was the worst decision he ever made. And he didn't have to shoot anyone either. But both of you helped to murder people for profit.

      I pity you. I hope that one day you realize what kind of person you are, and change your ways. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

      I wonder what the basis is for your claims of racism, when I'm claiming that you've contributed to a racist system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    124. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are other issues as well. Do we really want people with a BS from an institute for young earth creation science?

      Sure, accreditation could use revision, but it has to cover more than just grade inflation.

      As for government issued, that is a very dangerous proposition. Places of education must be free to tell unpleasant truths about government, past and present.

    125. Re:Tell me again... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They're preyed upon by counselors seeking job security, and led to make decisions the counselors know are poor in order to fill classes.

      Yes, that's true. If they learn to find out things for themselves, instead of blindly trusting authority, they've learned a lesson that's more valuable than the money they lost. Hopefully they actually learned it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    126. Re: Tell me again... by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

      Colleges and universities discovered "for profit businesses" where the customers are vying to get in. Milk cow institutions. Time to realize that greed is only limited by what desperate students will pay.

    127. Re:Tell me again... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The "everybody's gotta go to college!" nonsense needs to die. Most people are unfit (too unintelligent) for college and will only serve to dumb it down, as we've seen."

      While I agree that not everybody needs to (or should) go to college, the idea that only the rich should go to college is bad news from the start. What a mess that would make of America. Even more of a mess, that is.

      But that seems to be the America that Bush and now Obama have promoted.

    128. Re:Tell me again... by dataspel · · Score: 1

      This. Live with your parents, work anywhere, save a little money, don't spend it on video games. 2 years community college plus 2 years state school is less than USD 20k. Graduate debt free. Don't be an English major.

    129. Re:Tell me again... by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      That's an incredibly errant (but hopefully comforting) explanation of the "market" forces that drive the system...not saying there isn't an element of truth there...but that's not close to the level of appraisal needed to critique, much less recommend improvements. We all seem to want these problems to have simple solutions so we reduce the complexity to cope. But this isn't simple enough and it isn't the "other guy's" problem. If you feel the need to simplify...one approach might be to move closer to "root" rather than hopping around the tender branches...these are recurring fundamental themes. Once again, we frame seemingly incongruous conundrums with externalized rationalizations of the chaos that surrounds us...rather than simply accepting that our individual actions naturally aggregate consequentially...meaning that if we continue to perform, accept or tolerate such convenient assessments, balance simply cannot be reinstated. The balance I'm referring to is a fundamental respect for the other guy (and the realization that his needs are not greatly different from our own). And once again, we tolerate (empower) unbalanced power yet somehow remain blind to the natural cycle of cause and consequence. It's a strange got'cha that rising population doesn't appear to connect us...but rather it seems to drive us apart. This is an integrity problem that cannot be starved out...we must rediscover the meaning of enough...and re-establish a reasonable and relative baseline value for our contribution or services, resist the temptation to exploit and censure those who do. There is enough to go around if we practice reason and restraint. It's almost like a mental illness to do otherwise.

    130. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There are other issues as well. Do we really want people with a BS from an institute for young earth creation science?

      I think it needs to be about the accuracy of the transcript more than the dogma of the school.

      If the transcript says they took a particular Biology course, then it should mean that they learned certain things. Whether they believe in Santa Claus or whatever is irrelevant. If a student who has completed Bio 101 can't explain Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium that concerns me more than whether or not they believe that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on the earth.

    131. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Alas, I don't know if or how it is adjusted.

    132. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So how about if they got a 4.0 but unfortunately that means they believe that the earth is 6000 years old at most? That might have implications if their degree is in geology or biology.

      You can't even begin to judge the accuracy of a transcript until you know what was taught in those classes. If I take a course in 'advanced geometry' and the class was exclusively circling the shape that doesn't belong, the claim that I ended up with a 4.0 is entirely accurate. Hey, I even got the 'tough' question with the 3 squares and a parallelogram right. So accurate but meaningless.

    133. Re:Tell me again... by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

      Congrats, by being a brainiac (and thus qualifying for various grants and merit-based scholarships) you were able to have most of your college expenses defrayed at no cost to you. And it sounds like you covered a lot of the remainder by saving money living like a rat. Going to school in Arizona, with its low cost of living, also seems to have helped.

    134. Re:Tell me again... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      It wasn't me who called it that to begin with.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    135. Re: Tell me again... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Maybe everyone should do the responsible thing and simply not go to college if they can't afford it without debt. Surely the genius of free market will figure out how to run a modern economy with population not educated beyond high school level.

      I pretty much agree with this even though you were trying to be sarcastic. Making a bunch of educated people with lots of debt and poor ability to pay it off is not an improvement.

    136. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So how about if they got a 4.0 but unfortunately that means they believe that the earth is 6000 years old at most? That might have implications if their degree is in geology or biology.

      If I'm hiring somebody to build a bridge, I don't care if they believe that steel grows on trees. I do care that they know how to determine where to put the steel and what its strength specifications must be.

      College should be about skills/knowledge/etc, not belief. For all we know the standard model could be wrong (indeed, I doubt that would be even debated by most physicists considering the various phenomena in the universe we can't explain). I'd expect a physics student to be knowledgeable in the standard model all the same. I wouldn't expect them to sign a statement that they believe in it.

      So, if I hire a biologist, I really don't care how old they think the earth is. I do care that they're able to do the job they were hired to do. If I'm hiring them to assemble phylogenetic trees, then I expect that their coursework would have covered how to do that. Whether they think the job I'm paying them to do is BS or not doesn't really matter as long as they get the job done.

      You can't even begin to judge the accuracy of a transcript until you know what was taught in those classes. If I take a course in 'advanced geometry' and the class was exclusively circling the shape that doesn't belong, the claim that I ended up with a 4.0 is entirely accurate. Hey, I even got the 'tough' question with the 3 squares and a parallelogram right. So accurate but meaningless.

      I'm not suggesting that accreditation doesn't have a place, but it should be done by the government, and it should be about standardizing the terms on transcripts so that you know what somebody took, and not about regulating what courses people need to take.

    137. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So where on the transcript will it list the part about how sincere prayer is a suitable substitute for adequate reinforcement? Nowhere.

      How about if you hire a geologist to find likely oil fields? Wouldn't you like to know if his 4.0 means he is well versed in geology and able to apply the latest understanding to locating oil?

      What good is it if Unkle Larry's house of lern'in has an accurate transcript?

    138. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So where on the transcript will it list the part about how sincere prayer is a suitable substitute for adequate reinforcement? Nowhere.

      You can graduate with a degree in engineering from the best school in the US and believe that today. All a college test can do is assess knowledge/skill. You can ask people to sign a statement of faith if you want, but the fact that somebody signs a piece of paper has no bearing on what they actually believe, and even if they're sincere beliefs can change.

      I know people who have accredited degrees in the biological and physical sciences who don't agree with the Theory of Evolution. Contrary to popular belief, you can pass a test in genetics class without believing that what the class teaches is right. If I sat you down in a theology class I'm sure you could pass a test there, even if you happen to be an athiest.

      How about if you hire a geologist to find likely oil fields? Wouldn't you like to know if his 4.0 means he is well versed in geology and able to apply the latest understanding to locating oil?

      Absolutely.

      What good is it if Unkle Larry's house of lern'in has an accurate transcript?

      If the geology courses cover the material and measure the standards required by law, then there is no harm in them listing those courses in the transcript. If the courses do not cover the material required by law, then they can't list those courses on the transcript.

      I'm not opposed to standards for education - I'm just opposed to how things are done today.

    139. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Ahh, suddenly you're calling for laws beyond transcript accuracy. That was my point, the content of the courses that resulted in that transcript matters. That's both a good idea and a call for caution.

      Schools that toe the government's line or lose accreditation are a real problem, as are schools that can teach any old mis-information and remain accredited.

    140. Re:Tell me again... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I myself was subject to conscription 42 years ago. Got into the Navy and steamed around in circles in the Atlantic. My son used ROTC to help pay for college and opted for the Air Force. They tossed bundles of money at him to reenlist but he took his savings and went to law school. He is helping to pay for his younger siblings education. The world goes around whether you help it or not, do the best you can.

    141. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm torn on the issue in general.

      I think it is important to make it clear on a transcript what was actually done, and that means some kind of common vocabulary.

      However, the idea of regulation of course content bothers me, especially in the sciences. The government is traditionally extremely slow to embrace change. On the large scale academia is also slow to embrace change, but on the scale of what goes in any particular course many fields are quick to embrace change. This is especially true in the sciences, and that is essential since the state of knowledge is changing rapidly.

      With a lot of regulation biology students might still be using the 3-kingdom model of taxonomy; chemists might be mixing elements, controlling phlogiston, and memorizing atomic weights; and physicists would be using Newtonian dynamics to plot orbits.

      Oh, and knowing our luck teaching evolution might be illegal, which probably wasn't your goal. :)

    142. Re:Tell me again... by dataspel · · Score: 1

      Your mileage may vary of course. I put myself and 2 children through school with 0 debt. In my state, 4 years in-state tuition+fees+housing+food is now about 64K. Higher than most states, I think. Subtract 2 upper division years housing+food and 2 lower division years and you get about 16K. Add about 6K for 2 years of community college and 2K for used/rented books and that is about 24K. Oops, I guess I did miscalculate a bit. Would be interested in hearing your exact costs.

    143. Re:Tell me again... by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      You call that debt free?!

      Some would call it "guaranteed 3-year employment after college".

    144. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      And that's why I argued that government isn't the appropriate source of accreditation. That is actually how we got to the current situation where independent organizations handle accreditation. It was the least worst choice between anything goes and government regulation.

      So, we cannot get rid of it to allow market forces to drive the cost of education down. That means we'll have to regulate the prices down. Perhaps by setting a ceiling price if a school wants to receive funds from student loans at all.

    145. Re:Tell me again... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      You know, I had a similar experience. However, my senior year, I did end up actually choosing to take a couple grand in loans, simply to have spending money for "partying" (which was the best money I ever spent). By the time I fled grad school, I had less than $5K in student loans, hardly a significant burden.

      That's not the big difference between us, though. The big difference, I'd say, is that I'm not quite as full of myself. Read your post again and reflect on how much of an ass you sound like, keeping in mind how grants allotted to the top X% of applicants are necessarily not available to the bottom 1-X% applicants.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    146. Re:Tell me again... by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      Some clearly don't read fine print or the news.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    147. Re:Tell me again... by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      Meh. They know what they're signing up for. I would hope that all those military science classes taught by the ROTC that they took while working towards their degree would clue them in, as well.
      I declined the military route as neither the commitment nor the chance of shooting people or being shot at appealed to me.

      I have a cousin who graduated from commercial pilot school with $70k+ of debt just after 9/11. After six months of job searching when airlines just weren't interested in hiring, he joined the Army and began flying blackhawks. Ended up a few years later teaching in their helicopter school.

      Perfect solution? Of course not; he's done 4 tours overseas and been moved around to 3 different bases States-side since then. But having a mortgage-sized student loan 12 years later is not one of his problems.

    148. Re:Tell me again... by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      I've seen those presentations and similar debriefings. They use a lot of doublespeak, and dissenting politics (or just honest questioning clearly false information) is explicitly supposed to be kept to oneself. It's consider both unprofessional and antisocial.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    149. Re:Tell me again... by AdamKWatts · · Score: 1

      Huh. As I was not living below the poverty level, even during periods on unemployment, grants were not available to me. As I was in my 40's, the military debt path was not available to me. Scholarships for someone at my age? Not so's you'd notice. I was working, but since I wasn't some kid with no financial obligations, I couldn't pay as I went for grad/post grad classes. Tell me again how no one has to accrue debt to go to college. Not everyone is in my position. And not everyone is in YOUR position. Assuming otherwise is demonstrating the lack or practical understanding of the world that is stereotypical of college students. In 5 years I earned 3 AA's a BA and an MBA, along with 60K in student loans, all while working full time with adult responsibilities. It's ugly, but it was necessary. Next year my kid will start college. He'll have grant/scholarship opportunities that I didn't.

    150. Re:Tell me again... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      if someone wasn't as lucky as you

      Stop right there.

      There's zero luck involved in it. It's just a form that you fill out. That's it. Nothing special, no roll of the dice, no need to land on the free parking. You just fill it out and you get a pell grant. Pretty much the only thing that can disqualify you is if you've been in jail a few times, and even then it's still possible to get it anyways (if it does, you've got worse issues than worrying about student debt.) Either that or you YOURSELF make too much money, in which case I must ask why the fuck do you need a loan anyways?

      My grades were only responsible for the extras I received above and beyond, but everything was already paid for before those.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    151. Re:Tell me again... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Well two reasons that wouldn't apply:

      I was a veteran at age 19 (Discharged from the Army for having CSNB; Honorable Discharge which includes all veterans benefits.)

      I was about age 27 when I first applied for FAFSA.

      Anyways, go for it.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    152. Re:Tell me again... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And that's why I argued that government isn't the appropriate source of accreditation. That is actually how we got to the current situation where independent organizations handle accreditation.

      The problem with this is that the government actually IS the source of accreditation today, and those organizations aren't independent.

      The government only offers student loans to students attending accredited institutions. The government therefore maintains a list of bodies it considers valid accreditors. Those accrediting bodies effectively have government power behind them, without the accountability that usually requires.

      It was the least worst choice between anything goes and government regulation.

      I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here. I just think there has to be a better way. I do suspect that regulation is basically inevitable here.

    153. Re:Tell me again... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I don't really see a good resolution. In any given condition, government will either use accreditation as a criterion for student loan eligibility and with it the same claim that the accrediting bodies have the force of government, or it will ignore them bringing charges of government waste and failure to control fraud.

      I really think the best they can do is make sure their list reflects a rough consensus amongst academics.

    154. Re:Tell me again... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      No they cannot, for the serious courses you need government approval. Try to open a medicine course and you will see, for example.

    155. Re:Tell me again... by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The poor actually pay more taxes than the rich proportionally to their income, and at least as much as the middle class, they just do it indirectly every time they buy something.

    156. Re:Tell me again... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I know I'm late to the conversation, but you do understand that the cost of tuition has vastly outstripped both a) inflation and b) wage increases, right?

      When I went to University, it cost me about $2000/semester. It's EASY to not go into debt at those levels. Even the shitty TA jobs I had paid enough for that. I did end up taking out student loans, though. Tuition costs went up over the years I was in school, I moved out of my parents' place, I got into a car accident and needed ~$3000 of dental surgery (which I eventually got back through my tax return, actually), and I wanted to work less. But still, it was cheap in comparison to what it is now.

      We're very good at looking back and thinking, "gee, I could do it, why can't other people," but circumstances have changed. We're OLD now. I started University in 1995--that's almost 20 years ago. The world just isn't the same place.

    157. Re:Tell me again... by brad3378 · · Score: 1

      If I would have waited 10 years to attend college, I'd be way further in debt because tuition rates doubled.

      --

  2. Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So should I stop making payments, in anticipation of looking like I need a government bailout?

    -Lodlaiden

    1. Re:Lessons Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. It's not the borrowers who get bailouts -- it's the lenders.

    2. Re:Lessons Learned by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The lenders already get a bailout. College loans are not bankruptable. They'll just take 20% of your wages for life.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. Easily available loans by Cowclops · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that anyone can get a loan, even people who definitely have no prospect of paying it back. With guarenteed loan money, schools can charge whatever they want and you'll just have to take out a bigger loan. And of course 18 year olds fresh out of high school don't understand the power of compound interest, they just know that they "have" to go to college to get a good job and they'll get a better job if they go to a fancy private school.

    While you can't get a bachelors from our local community college, it only costs $2,500 a year in tuition and you're getting credits that can transfer to any state school. Why can a community college offer actual college classes for that little, but a 4 year school can charge $10,000, $20,000 or more for largely the same education? Its just insane.

    1. Re:Easily available loans by rebelwarlock · · Score: 2

      Serious question here: how do 18 year olds not understand compound interest? I'm pretty sure I understood at least the basic concept by the time I was 12.

    2. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why can a community college offer actual college classes for that little, but a 4 year school can charge $10,000, $20,000 or more for largely the same education?

      Because it's not the same education.

      Besides 4 year schools are not the causing this problem. It's for profit schools are that the problem. It's places like University of Phoenix and Devry that are solely responsible.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/

    3. Re:Easily available loans by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      The worst part is that these loans cannot be discharged, even if you go bankrupt. In a way, I guess it makes sense. Once you finish university, you could just go bankrupt and have a free education. However, if you're stuck working low-wage jobs the rest of your life, you will never get rid of this debt.

    4. Re:Easily available loans by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why can a community college offer actual college classes for that little, but a 4 year school can charge $10,000, $20,000 or more for largely the same education? Its just insane.

      I agree with most of what you have to say, and its borne out by the massive increase in the price of undergraduate educate over the rate of inflation, during the last 40 years as more and more loan subsidies and grants have been created.

      That said to some degree the community colleges can afford to what they do because the other schools exist. Lots of community college staff is part time, there academic involvement begins and ends with teaching. They are not creating the texts and such that get used. Professors at more traditional institutions usually also do things like conduct studies, author texts or articles etc. Some (although very little of) of the higher prices at the traditional schools goes to subsidize the costs of these other academic efforts, without which there would be little to talk about in the CC class room.

      Not to say that Community College is not a really great option for lots of people, or that its role is not important or even that it should not be expanded.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because their parents don't either. At 12 they might have understood. They forgot by 18. Just look at the number of adults with mortgages for 20+ years. Better yet, ask someone "how much interest are you paying on your mortgage". If you ask me, I'll say $12'000. It's a $450'000 purchase, a $230'000 mortgage, I'll pay an average of 3.5% interest per year, I'll have paid it off in 10 years.

      But ask anyone else, and in my position they'll say 3.5%. They forget the "per year" part of that entirely. So they take 20 years, or 30 years, instead of my 10 years, and instead of paying $12'000 total interest on $230'000 total loan, they pay closer to $100'000 total interest, or 40%!

      The most frustrating part is that I didn't make it up. Even at the bank, when I applied for or renew my mortgage, they give you the year-by-year breakdown of interest and absolute dollars. All you need to do is to look at the bottom line of the chart. On mine, it says $242'000 repaid. On their, it says $330'000 repaid.

      They don't need to understand compound interest, and doing so isn't actually sufficient here. They need to understand the concept of units of measure. In a loan repayment, that unit isn't "percent". As my mother would ask: "percent of what?!". It's "dollars per year". If you understand units of measure, then you understand that dollars per year doesn't tell you how many dollars.

      And if you understand marketing, then you understand that smaller bi-weekly doesn't make the dollar amount smaller than normal monthly payments.

    6. Re:Easily available loans by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to intellectually understand it, quite another to have a feel for it.

      Especially when confounded with deferred payments (but not necessarily interest) and having the value of the degree pounded into their heads since they were old enough to stand without assistance.

    7. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You realize you get to live the house while you pay it off right? You get to live in a $450k house for 10 years, then upgrade to a $900k house after that. If you just took a 20 year mortgage you could live in the $900k house the whole time.

      I'm sure you'll say "I don't want or need a $900k house, nobody does", but for some people that's a big part of their quality of life, and having it for an extra 10 years will make their lives significantly better.

    8. Re:Easily available loans by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the GP is not talking about upgrades at all. He (or she) is saying think in terms of total repayment, not percentage, not yearly payments, not monthly payments. That point is valid whatever the size of home you want to buy or upgrade.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:Easily available loans by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mixture of things:

      1. In many states, the community-college system is still heavily subsidized, while the flagship schools have been moving towards a "user-pays" model. For example, the state of California has cut its per-student subsidy to the University of California system by about 60% in real terms over the past 30 years, but has cut their per-student subsidy to the community-college system by only about 20%.

      2. Community colleges typically are looser in who they'll hire to teach classes: no PhD required, can teach part-time, no research expectations, etc. Like with any field, if you have lower requirements, you can get staff for lower salaries, e.g. hiring C++ programmers vs. web designers.

      3. Prestigious universities have suffered more administrative bloat, I guess because it's where the prestige is, so attracts empire-builders. Community colleges don't pay their President $500k/yr, or have an army of Assistant Vice Chancellors.

      4. To be a "top school" there are higher expectations of the other resources provided besides the actual classes. A community college typically has a small or no library, while UC Berkeley is expected to have a full-coverage research library. UC Berkeley is also expected to provide good laboratory and computing facilities, dorms, security and healthcare for an on-campus resident population, etc.

    10. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you can't get a bachelors from our local community college, it only costs $2,500 a year in tuition and you're getting credits that can transfer to any state school.

      not necessarily. I did that and some of my classes weren't transferable because there wasn't a compatible class at the state uni. -at that time. Also, there's a minimum grade ( usually) for transfer - 'C'. A 'D' will allow you to get your associates if your average stays above a certain level, but it won't transfer.

      The problem is that anyone can get a loan, even people who definitely have no prospect of paying it back.

      What I advise kids these days is that unless you're going for CS or Engineering (or medicine) AND you think you can keep your grades above 3.0, then don't bother with loans at all. Find some other way.

      We are brought up that education is always a good investment. And the more the better. Many of us took loans to get graduate degrees (MBA, JD, MS) during the bust because we were under the erroneous impression that the extra degree would improve our employment prospects or allow for a career change.

      I was told by a hiring manager that my graduate work shows him that I went to school because I couldn't get a job (the economy sucked!) and that if I were any good, then I wouldn't be unemployed.

      Ouch. $48,000 debt (from a state school) Ouch! I blew through my savings while I was out of work - this was before there were decent unemployment. And even then, if you're unemployed - especially long term - you become unemployable. Career change can't happen either because no one hires entry level people anymore. Entry level is now 2 years of experience and with gray hair, it's even harder.

      So, what we need to do is get over this 'more education is better', and if we as a society want folks are are educated in humanities, then those programs need to cost MUCH less.

      But the thing is, just about every profession is hurting. (A 3%ish unemployment rate for software developers is HORRIBLE! if there was a shortage, it should be MUCH less - even with the national average being above 7%. ). New college grads are having a hard time in every field - some worse than others. And this student debt is going to be a drag on the economy for decades.

      My car is falling apart ad I can't afford a new one and it's already 19 years old.

      That's a car sale and financing that won't happen because I'm paying for a worthless degree.

    11. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not even close to the same education or experience. More money brings in more successful educators, which may be more likely to teach well.
      Have you taken any classes at your community college? No one gives a shit about anything there. It's just an extension of public high school.

      This all beside the point, because the $2500 a year in tuition is STILL HIDEOUSLY BLOATED. There is absolutely no good reason school should cost this much money.

    12. Re:Easily available loans by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      You are right but the structural reason for that otherwise the loans would be totally unsecured; no collateral is put up and you can't repo and education for non payment.

      Because most high school grands looking for college loans don't have anything of sufficient value to put up the loans must be unsecured in order to get lenders to the table they had to be given special rights that trump bankruptcy protections.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to factor in the cost of money... 3.5% is dirt cheap. Can usually make way more than that in the stock market. Or using the money to start your own business. Sure, you may pay 3.5% interest per year for 20 extra years, but if you are making 10% in the market on that money it is a net win.

    14. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just look at the number of adults with mortgages for 20+ years.

      That is simply wrong.

      1. If I lived in the US, I would have taken out the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage up to last year.
      2. sometimes you have to understand the other interest rate, inflation.

      How can you not take out a 4% mortgage where historical spikes of inflation are much above that? Unless you are betting that inflation will be kept in check for 30 years!

    15. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 2

      Actually, you are totally and completely incorrect, you don't get to upgrade from a 450 house to a 900 house after 10 years. That's the major big huge mis-information spread to you and to everyone. In order to do what you've said, you'd need a time-travel machine.

      After the 10 years, your house isn't worth 450, it's worth 900 -- and so is the next house you buy.

      So, in 2024, my 2014-450 house is a 2024-900 house. The second house that I buy in 2024 is another 2024-900 house, which was a 2014-450 house.

      Unless you "down-size", you're never affording anything more. It's just a bigger number because everything's a bigger number. You need to sell your house and not buy a new house in order to benefit from the appreciation at all.

      Welcome to marketing: they tell you that you're smart, so you don't realize that you're stupid.

      Ultimately, the benefit to your mortgage is that you're investing in real-estate that appreciates. If your $450'000 house appreciates to $900'000, and you spent $150'000 in interest, then you got a 67% return on your investment over ten years. That's a pretty shitty return for a long-term investment. You could have invested in many things that would give you a much better return, and much more reliably too. But none of that matters because you're about to buy another house the day you sell, so all of this only applies to an investment property, not to your own home.

      But look at this. In a thread about not understanding how mortgages, interest, and compound interest relate to actual dollars, you're a text-book anonymous example.

    16. Re:Easily available loans by russotto · · Score: 2

      Besides 4 year schools are not the causing this problem. It's for profit schools are that the problem. It's places like University of Phoenix and Devry that are solely responsible.

      Certainly not. The for-profit schools are a response to the free money available, and part of the problem. But the cause isn't the schools, it's the free money. Even if you made all the for-profit schools go away, the problem would be the same size, just the price of the traditional schools would go up even more.

    17. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because their parents don't either. At 12 they might have understood. They forgot by 18. Just look at the number of adults with mortgages for 20+ years. Better yet, ask someone "how much interest are you paying on your mortgage". If you ask me, I'll say $12'000. It's a $450'000 purchase, a $230'000 mortgage, I'll pay an average of 3.5% interest per year, I'll have paid it off in 10 years.

      But ask anyone else, and in my position they'll say 3.5%. They forget the "per year" part of that entirely. So they take 20 years, or 30 years, instead of my 10 years, and instead of paying $12'000 total interest on $230'000 total loan, they pay closer to $100'000 total interest, or 40%!

      I don't think you understand this as well as you think you do. The person who gets a 30-year loan at a 3.5% rate is almost certainly doing much better than you, despite having to pay more total interest.

      Let's look at some numbers. Your plan requires a monthly payment of $2274 every month for 10 years. Their plan requires a monthly payment of $1033 every month for 30 years. If they put the $1241 per month saved into an investment that gives 4% NOMINAL returns per year (which is quite a low rate of return historically speaking), then after 10 years, here is how their finances compare to yours:

      You: No mortgage, no additional assets
      Them: A debt of $178,082 and an investment worth $185,947.

      As you can see, if they then pay off the principal, they end up almost $9000 ahead of you. If you factor in inflation, or assume annual returns better than 4%, the situation swings even further in favor of the 30-year mortgage. For example, using the 9.5% historical annual returns of the S&P 500, the person with the 30 year mortgage ends up $54,000 ahead of you after 10 years.

      Note: In reality, banks charge a higher rate for the 30-year mortgage for exactly this reason.

    18. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      That's got nothing to do with the mortgage. The fact that you can compensate elsewhere is always true. By that logic, if I have a super-successful stock or business opportunity, then I can pay 90% interest on my mortgage too.

    19. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I like that you think interest rates will never go down over thirty years. Keep up that gud thunking.

      Here's a tip. You're confusing "interest rates" and "inflation". They are tied together in causation, but their values are not tied at all.

    20. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Also, why in hell would I want to pay 4% today? I've beet paying 2.5% for the last 6 years. Right now, I'm paying 2.24%. If I were paying 4%, I'd be burning $2'500 per year, compounded! And because I'm paying down large chunks every year, now is the time that I really want to pay a lower rate. Later, when my mortgage is much much smaller, the rate matters less.

      So again, welcome to compound interest. I'm paying a low rate on my currently high mortage. Later I'll be paying a high rate on a low mortgage. That's cool. But you, on the other hand, right now are paying a high rate on a high mortgage and later you'll be paying a low rate on a low mortgage.

      Do the math. Get it down to actual dollars out of your wallet. You're wasting boat-loads of money. All you're getting for it is peace of mind that things won't change over 30 years. That's easy when you screw yourself today.

    21. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Keep reading my other replies. I wouldn't agree. You've said what others have said -- that there are other investments that I'm not making. You've forgotten that I can borrow against my own home equity and invest that money. My equity grows faster than yours, and as it does, I have less interest.

      You're simply paying more interest. You're losing money. But you're comparing your 30 years of interest with 10 years of investment against my 10 years of interest -- of course yours is going to be better. You should be comparing it against my 10 years of interest plus 9 years of growing investment. Then you lose.

      And if you company the 30 years against the 30 years -- cradle-to-grave -- then you lose by leaps and bounds.

      But hey, you're not putting your name to your arguments, so it's no wonder that you don't understand the value of things -- your name doesn't have any.

    22. Re:Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, the benefit to your mortgage is that you're investing in real-estate that appreciates. If your $450'000 house appreciates to $900'000, and you spent $150'000 in interest, then you got a 67% return on your investment over ten years.

      WARNING: There is no guarantee that your house will appreciate. It may well become worth less with time. Even if it does appreciate, if you move to a more expensive area (e.g. taking a new job), that won't be sufficient to get you the same standard of house. As investment instruments, houses can be volatile, undiversified, thin-market, low-return, high transaction cost, non-fungible and highly leveraged - not for the faint of heart. So think of buying a house more as a spending decision than an investment decision, and then you'll get a windfall if you happen to get lucky. If you can't afford the house as a spending item, then rent.

    23. Re:Easily available loans by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      But it is true that this isn't the whole story. There is the time-value of money to be considered, and the argument about living in a better house for longer is not necessarily the wrong choice. The extra interest bought you more time in a better house.

      Or, if you bought the same price house, the extra interest left you with more cash on hand, which you could invest in other ways. This may or may not have been a better solution, though. If your money isn't working harder than the interest, you'd have been better off with the shorter term and lower interest. The house it self is also (usually) rising in "value" during this period....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    24. Re:Easily available loans by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Also, community college professors are sometimes regular college professors who are teaching a few classes at the community college because they believe in education. Effectively this means that the even professors' wages are being subsidized by their regular college wages.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    25. Re: Easily available loans by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      I guess your strategy might make sense if you don't think you can make your money work harder than an average of 3.5% over the next 20-30 years, and you have enough of an emergency reserve that you don't care about liquidity.

    26. Re: Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      why would you assume that I don't invest my money elsewhere? You, like so many others, forget that I can borrow against my home equity as I pay it down. Similarly, I don't need to be liquid to be able to by liquid. I can convert my equity to liquidity in 48 hours at any time. You're choosing to be liquid in advance of needing to be, and you're paying for that unused benefit.

      So think what you're thinking again, but first:
      a) know that within 48 hours, I can switch from me to you 100%, or any partial-way in-between

      b) as I pay down my mortgage, I can borrow the money back out and invest it in anything I choose

      c) investments that "average" more than 3.5% isn't enough -- that average doesn't compete with your compounded mortgage interest, and investments come and go and fluctuate. When your investment does poorly for ten days, your mortgage rate still compounds at full-speed.

      d) my emergency reserve is actually saving me thousands of dollars by being paid into my mortgage right from the start until I actually have that emergency. Think about how much more interest you pay for every $1'000 you keep in your emergency reserve instead of in your mortgage. Think hard. If your mortgage is 30 years, and you wind up paying an average of 5% over those years, then that's like borrowing that $1'000 emergency dollars for 30 years! Based on a few things, you're likely going to pay well over 50% interest! That's over $500 dollars of interest on your $1'000 of emergency! So now you need to budget twice as much for any emergency! That's ridiculous!

    27. Re: Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I'll say to you the same thing that I say to my friends and to my clients. Stop using math. Start counting with your fingers and with your toes. Stop calculating with percentages, rates, divisions, algorithms, and expressions. Just sit down with the next 30 calendars, write down onto every day of every month what you expect to happen, what you expect to earn, and what you expect to pay. Then just count up all of the dollar amounts. Do it again for the second scenario. See which works bettor for your planned future.

      Math and calculus and arithmetic are all fine and good when brute-force isn't reasonable. But in this case, with 30 years of your life and most of your spendable income, in only takes a few hours to go through that many calendars. Sit down, do it, and decide with pure counting. Then no one can screw with you, and no one can convince you of something, and it'll be your life's planned numbers not someone's else's marketable expectations of your future success.

    28. Re: Easily available loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Barring the "state school" portion, I live near Naropa University in Boulder, CO. Yearly tuition is something like $28000. Now granted, yes it's a private school, but you can still get federally backed student loans to go there. And at Naropa, let me pull up their webpage real quick. for roughly 100K, I can get a degree in contemplative psychology, early childhood education, environmental studies, interdisciplinary studies, music, peace studies, performance, religious studies, traditional eastern arts.

      Would you like me to carry on? Basically, it's a school that offers nothing but degrees at prices which those who hold them will never be able to repay their loans.

    29. Re:Easily available loans by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      If you ask me, I'll say $12'000. It's a $450'000 purchase, a $230'000 mortgage, I'll pay an average of 3.5% interest per year, I'll have paid it off in 10 years.

      Wait, what?
      230 000*3.5%*10 = 80 500
      $12 000 would be about 0.5% interest per year
      Did I miss something?

    30. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      refinancing is an application process, takes days or weeks, and you can be turned down.
      borrowing against my equity is optional, controllable, and can be done for short-term efforts.

      if it's exactly the same, in your opinion, then take the control, don't force yourself to be tied to your initial decision for 30 years!

      it's also not the same, because being able to change things and control things is being able to use intelligence, and that's an input.

      put your name to your argument, or it has no value. you can decide to what that pronoun refers.

    31. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      learn to learn. you mean 5% per year. I said 67%. Totally different. 5% per year isn't bad. 67% sucks.

    32. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      first, that means I'm the same holophrastic as I was three comments ago. I don't know if you're the same coward or a different coward.

      second, you do know that's my real name right? As in, I pay federal and provincial and property taxes under that name. I applied for my mortgage under that name. you're not in any position to authenticate "holophrastic" as being my name or not. I don't know why you'd assume that it isn't. Nice presumption. totally incorrect.

      think harder.

    33. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Yes, you don't understand compound interest. First, it's 3.5% on the every-shrinking balance from the 230'000. If it were linear, that would mean exactly half. In this case it's not linear, but for this comment it's close enough.

      And second, it's not just ANY mortgage. This is MY mortage. I said "I'll have paid it off in 10 years". That wasn't a calculation, that was a promise. I make an additional $10'000 per year, and use it to pay down my mortgage. I also have a retirement fund of $40K -- which I'll use to zero-out my mortgage at the end. In ten years, between everything, I'll have paid off the mortgage.

      So, after 10 years, I'll have paid back the $230'000 loan, plus $12'000 of interest.

      Like I said, and this is my entire point here and always, don't use math to approximate life when you can use counting. My money, my house, my mortgage, my income, my life, my problems = $12'000 of interest on my $450'000 house. I'll pay 2.67% interest on my house. For that, either I'll be able to live in it 10 years earlier than I otherwise would have, or I'll have a house twice as big as I could have otherwise afforded -- depending on which perspective you prefer.

      For the record, I'm currently three-years in.

    34. Re:Easily available loans by Kjella · · Score: 1

      So they take 20 years, or 30 years, instead of my 10 years, and instead of paying $12'000 total interest on $230'000 total loan, they pay closer to $100'000 total interest, or 40%!

      But they also make down payments later when the money is of less real value. To get the real cost of a loan you should use size*(interest-inflation), which means the real per year cost of loans around here is around 1.5% despite being 3.5% nominal. Personally I think of it more as a running expense, for every $100k more expensive house I want to live in it'll cost me about 1.5% real interest = $1500/year. You're also counting it wrong, imagine you took out a 20 year loan instead and put the extra money in a savings account instead. It's only the interest rate difference that'd be the extra cost of loaning another ten years, the rest is you comparing apples to oranges - someone who makes enough money to pay it down in 10 years and someone who doesn't.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    35. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I'm not counting it wrong. I'm not doing math. You're the one doing math with interest and inflation and six other dynamic figures.

      As I've said elsewhere, I'm counting. I took a calendar, I went through every month for thirty years. I wrote down every income dollar and every expense dollar and every expected problem and every expected winfall. I'm telling you that for me, and for anyone even remotely like me, my way works out better by many many many dollars.

      Comparing apples and oranges is incredibly easy in this conversation. They have retail costs, they have growing costs, and they have market costs too.

      Stop using math. Start using counting.

    36. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      You made a bad financial decision. I bought more house than I could afford. I mortgaged it for 30 years. It went up more over that period than I paid in interest. Land is fixed. You can't inflate land. It'll *always* beat inflation. You should stretch yourself with land whenever you can. My primary residence went up 15% per year for 3 years straight, though I like it here and am not willing to move yet, or I'd have cashed out at a great time, and downsized into something that will appreciate as fast or faster over the next 5 years.

      The most frustrating part is that I didn't make it up. Even at the bank, when I applied for or renew my mortgage, they give you the year-by-year breakdown of interest and absolute dollars. All you need to do is to look at the bottom line of the chart. On mine, it says $242'000 repaid. On their, it says $330'000 repaid.

      And in a stable market, they'll be better off than you.

    37. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But that's not the whole story. He's focusing on one number so much that he's missing out on the bigger picture. The guy that got the house for 10% more for 3x as long will pay much more back over that time, but in that time, the houses are appreciating. Does the more expensive house appreciate more? Of course they do. So, where in that balance is his plan? If the house was sold 10 years later, paying off the mortgage (if any), who has the most cash in their pocket at the end? Often, the 30 year mortgage guy does. So GP is focusing so much on repayment cost that he's not thinking about profit. I'd rather have profit. His math is right, but his priorities are wrong. If he's looking at retiring in 10 years and living in that house indefinitely, then maybe he'd have a good plan for giving up total profit for locking in a retirement location and optimizing cash flow 10 years out. But someone without some sentimental attachment to the location should be looking at profit, not some sub-metric he thinks is more important.

    38. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      What people actually do is sell at $900 in 2024, and buy at $1.5M in 2024. If they'd have stretched, rather than buying a 2014-450, they could have gotten a 2014-750 that becomes the 2024-1.5M. How do your numbers work out for that?

      then you got a 67% return on your investment over ten years. That's a pretty shitty return for a long-term investment. You could have invested in many things that would give you a much better return, and much more reliably too.

      Name 3. I'll get you started: Stocks.

      And it's still an investment, even if only for your children who sell it when you die.

    39. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Talk to me again when you actually cash out. Because you likely won't. You'll run the same gambit that you're running now. Most people never cash out. It's also never free to cash out a house. Cradle-to-grave, then tell me. You sound perfectly competant, I just honestly don't believe that you'll cash out. Most people who enjoy the pleasures of profiting from financial decisions never stop doing so, and so they never actually posses the profits.

    40. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Isn't 67% over 10 years roughly the same as 5% per year for 10 years?

    41. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You'll need to read more of my comments to see that your confusion has been dealth with three times.

      The "paying it off in 10 years" wasn't my conclusion. That was the given. I also didn't say that I'm paying 3.5% per year, only you said that, and I didn't include lots of other things. So I'll tell you the same: stop using math, start using counting. You'll find that math yields mathematical approximations requiring a spherical frog in the proverbial microwave.

    42. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You've forgotten that I can borrow against my own home equity and invest that money.

      All a mortgage is is a home equity loan. So how is your second-mortgage any different than other's first, other than second mortgages usually have worse rates than the primary?

      We didn't "forget", we just assumed some logical consistency. Silly us.

      You're simply paying more interest. You're losing money. But you're comparing your 30 years of interest with 10 years of investment against my 10 years of interest -- of course yours is going to be better. You should be comparing it against my 10 years of interest plus 9 years of growing investment. Then you lose.

      They were comparing apples and apples. You lose. So you are trying to convince us that an apple is a red orange, and that we are comparing apples and oranges. It isn't working.

    43. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Right now, I'm paying 2.24%. If I were paying 4%, I'd be burning $2'500 per year, compounded!

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    44. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      5% wasn't "5%", it was referencing the "5% these days", which is different. The 67% referenced a sustained 5% over 10 years.

      If you're getting 5% on an investment today, I'm saying there's nothing terrible about that. If you're expecting to get 5% per year for the next 10 years, that sucks because with that kind of long-term, you ought to be getting way more than 67%. You ought to be able to double your money quite easily.

      On top of all of that, I'm personally expecting what's-considered-good-these-days to grow over the next ten years.

      I'm upset because many here seem to thing that 5% per year is the same as 67% after ten years but it's not. One is an ever-changing current rate, the other is a hind-sight result.

    45. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      you've presumed, incorrectly, one VERY major thing: that I don't borrow against the equity in my home. You've added an investment on their side, but not on mine. Do the exact same calculation again, but this time have me borrow from my own home equity.

      You still lose, as a second mortgage will have a worse rate than a first, so you'll have less in savings than they will.

      So give me the same investment. As I pay down my mortgage, use the built-up equity to invest in that same nominal investment. Because I'm paying down my mortgage much faster, I'm building up my equity much faster, so I'm investing into that nominal investment much more.

      You are making the same error you accuse others of. They can apply the "savings" to the mortgage and get the exact same results as you, so you are in no better shape. Or, they can wait to the end of the 10 years, and pay the whole thing off, or borrow against their investments (though less common these days, I've done it back in the '80s before the string of financial crises started).

      But the more interest I pay on loans, the less I have to invest.

      Yet, you are willing to spend money on loans to have money to invest. Which puts your plan as no better than theirs, but fits your personal beliefs better. There is *no* scenario where your plan is better. You are arguing to have the least amount against your house as possible, while stating you'll borrow as much against your house as possible. Your "plan" is no different than someone taking an interest-only loan when buying it, then investing the payment savings into better investments. But you are so emotionally invested in being right, that you don't even understand that your plan is internally inconsistent. IT's just argumentative.

    46. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      put your name to your argument, or it has no value. you can decide to what that pronoun refers.

      Sounds more like you are almost realizing you are wrong, so you are getting more irrational and starting to insult the posters pointing out your illogic, rather than considering the statements thoughtfully.

    47. Re:Easily available loans by thoth · · Score: 1

      you've presumed, incorrectly, one VERY major thing: that I don't borrow against the equity in my home

      This is some pretty shitty investment advice.

      The first case had an investment of ~$1200 a month since that was how much less their monthly payment was. You think borrowing against your home to invest is the same thing? Man that's stupid, the risks are quite different.

      The point is that I can always hedge my bets and invest in more stuff.

      Brilliant! Talk to Wall Street and start buying CDOs and other derivatives for risk management. I mean, those things never lose value.

    48. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Heh, I read "socks" the first time. I was very confused!

      I have friends doing exactly what you're saying, 2014-750 to 2024-1500, absolutely. And you can watch them struggle to stretch every month of life, and you can watch it affect their marriage, and their children, and none of that has anything to do with the "financial" benefits. Except that it ripples.

      When the struggle is too far (and that's the stretch part) an additional loan throws things off of the plan. And that still doesn't alter the financial "decision".

      But in 2024, they don't get 1.5M in cash in their pocket. They never actually get the benefits of that appreciation until they sell the house and don't buy another -- so they'd need to down-size to see any of that financial benefit in the first place. Which they won't do.

      But I'll let you in on a little secret. In order to make that "stretch", as you call it, you need to work harder at your job, to make more money, to afford the payments. In practical terms, this means that you are working for your house -- as in your house is paying you to work harder.

      But if you work at your job, you pay income taxes. Those taxes don't go into your house.

      If, instead, you trade in those working hours for DIY projects, you can physically work for your house directly. That work is "unpaid", and hence it is untaxed. If you're not an idiot, you can learn to do a lot of the house upgrades that very quickly increase the value of your house -- far more than appreciation -- at very minimal cost.

      So you've asked me to list 2 more things into which you could invest for return. I'm going to say into your house and into your land. Gardening, floors, counters, cabinets, paint, furniture, driveways, even brick-work are all very easy to learn and to do and don't require any certification or licencing or dangerous efforts or safety concerns.

      Right now, if I want to spend 200 hours doing something, I could work as an employee for a month and get a typical $10K income, which is really only $7K bottom-line. As a typical small-business owner, that's closer to $9K. Or I could finish my basement and increase my house's value by about $50K over what I'd spend on lumber, drywall, paint, and an electrician and a plumber.

    49. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      don't use math to approximate life when you can use counting.

      Counting is math. Every place I've lived was paid off in under 5 years. My current home was bought under separate circumstances with no relation to previous finances, so it's a 30-year mortgage (same rate as a 10 year, so why reduce my options?), but it'll be paid off in 10 years. I'm 2 years in. You are justifying a small portion of your finances in a manner that's WRONG for most people, then asserting it's best. IT might be best for you, but it's likely not for anyone else.

      Why are you so emotionally invested in justifying your personal investment strategy to strangers? We don't care, we know you are wrong, and we are going about our lives without thinking about it any more. Why can't you?

    50. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      asked and answered elsewhere. read around.

    51. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!

    52. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Again, as I've commented elsewhere, only your second mortgages are worse rates than the first. My second mortgages aren't. Playing with money later comes with greater intelligence (as in intel), it's fore-sight, and it's retro-actively psychic. If you believe that your first mortgage rate is the best rate you'll ever get, and the current stock rate is the best it'll ever be, then you've made the right choice by the definition of your expectations for the future. And the bank is very happy about that.

    53. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Debt that can't be discharged is slavery. The stories that make the news are the people 5 years out of college, paying back the massive debt, then they have a financial problem. An illness that's not well covered by insurance is a common one. They lose their house for it, and rack up piles of bills, and when they finally have no other choice, they declare bankruptcy, and all they are left with for years of effort is a pile of student debt.

      They'd have been better off paying off the student debt, rather than medical bills. But the last time I suggested that non-dischargeable debt should be a higher priority, I was told that was fraud and would end them up in jail. So say Slashdot legal experts.

    54. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      counting is not math. math is a shortcut to counting because counting takes longer and more effort, sometimes unreasonably so.

      keep reading, throughout I've said "for my situation, for me, with my numbers, do your own". but if you're paying off your mortgages in 5 years, then you're agreeing with me. we're not talking about the piece of paper than reduces your options. we're talking about the real-world, real-time, number of years for which you have and are paying for your mortgage. no one cares what the paper says.

      Dude, my mortgage also "says" 30 years.

    55. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      you've taken small counter-arguments directed at specific earlier-arguments and are treating them as whole concepts out of context. that's not the original debate.

    56. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      you are most definitely correct, I missed the "especially"; that's embarassing.

      but I can say that with my own investments over the years, even down to simple GICs, ten year commitments has gotten me far more than 5%. Even my current mutual funds seem to get me 10% per year -- 20% this past year, not that I have enough invested to make much of a difference.

    57. Re:Easily available loans by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but the more you explain yourself, the less I understand.

    58. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You said: 230 000*3.5%*10 = 80 500

      That's not what actually happens.
      It's half of that.
      Because it's not 230 000 after the first month.
      It gets smaller with each payment.

    59. Re:Easily available loans by russotto · · Score: 2

      They'd have been better off paying off the student debt, rather than medical bills. But the last time I suggested that non-dischargeable debt should be a higher priority, I was told that was fraud and would end them up in jail. So say Slashdot legal experts.

      Yeah, I'm guessing said Slashdot legal experts have no student debt attributable to law school, and not because they paid their own way through either.

      Highest priority goes to taxes, but that's probably not an issue. Next, rent or mortgage, because if you don't pay you don't have a place to live. But yeah, unless the hospital is going to repo that kidney, they can get in line behind student debt.

    60. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'll cash out in a longer term that I'll remember you. My plans are for retirement. I'll cash out when I retire (likely one to 5 years before, to lock into lower return, but less volatile investments with cashflow over growth). But no, I don't churn investments just to realize intermediate returns. I churn them when I can do something better with the funds. So I'm aiming to cash out in 15 years or so.

    61. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Both are the same, especially when both are a hypothetical 10 year return on a house sold in 2024.

    62. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My residence says "30 years". My investment properties say "interest only" and aren't getting paid off unless the market changes drastically. The interest is tax deductible. The taxes are tax deductible. The improvements are tax deductible. The 2014-450 property will be 2014-550 by the time 2024 comes. And it will have cost me nothing out of my pocket. If inflation increases, my property will increase even faster (property holding at about 3% above inflation at the worst, and improving from there, aside from minor variations), and when inflation increases my personal expenses, it'll also earn increased rental income, for a good return and good cashflow, regardless of the economy, so long as people need land, and that'll only change if the apocalypse comes.

    63. Re:Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      dude. different country. different career. different life. none of that applies to me. I'm not an employee and there is no such thing as a 401k.

    64. Re: Easily available loans by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      As many, many others have already pointed out, you're betting with your "pay down the primary mortgage as fast as I can, and take out a HELOC for investment" strategy that today's interest rates--rates based on a federal funds rate of basically zero--are going to go down in the future. That pretty much speaks for itself.

      But at risk of further feeding the troll, I'll add that you're not only counting on interest rates going down--you're counting on them going down far enough to cover the 75-150 basis point spread between a conventional mortgage today and a HELOC today. And if you haven't already taken out the HELOC, if you're truly in an emergency situation where you need money (i.e., you lost your income stream), you may find just the tiniest bit of resistance by lenders to you trying to take out additional debt at that point. If you HAVE already taken out the HELOC, that means you've deliberately set up a one-way valve in which you pay down debt at a lower rate and take it back out at a higher rate. More proof that you're the smartest guy in the room, I'm sure.

      To each their own--free country and all--but I do worry a bit about the supposed "clients" you mentioned in your other reply.

    65. Re: Easily available loans by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      you've split, juggled, and then confused three of my counter-comments out of context from the original discussion. I had put forth an example of why 18 year olds don't understand compound interest. you're now three-nested-arguments deeper from there.

      try commenting on the original point -- that their parents don't have any idea how much dollars they are paying in interest. That was the only point. Forget about my very rough examples of my situation without any details. I'm in a different country than you, with a different banking system than yours. I never said anything about a HELOC. My mortgage is likely, and apparently, nothing like yours.

      I said borrow against my home equity. I never said anything about a line of credit. Why the hell would I ever use a line of credit when a mortgage is so very much cheaper?

    66. Re: Easily available loans by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      You're engaging in what I like to call "lily pad" arguments. When your first argument ("I'm tho thmart for paying off my 3.5% mortgage as fast as I can") gets called out for being silly, you immediately and shamelessly just jumped to the next silly story. You've changed it so many times, I wouldn't be surprised if you're just someone still living in your parents' basement with too much time on your hands and desperately looking for a way to convince someone--anyone--that you're the only one who really understands how the world works.

      But nonetheless responding to your latest and greatest attempt to paint yourself out of a corner: if you're talking about taking out a brand-new second mortgage on your house if you get in a bind, then you're straight back to the scenario I specifically mentioned in my last post, aren't you? Good luck doing that with no income. Peace out.

    67. Re:Easily available loans by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      But they have been told their entire life that to be successful you need a college education. Their parents push it, teachers push it, guidance counselors push it. The news pushes it, politicians push it, and eventually their own friends push it.

      Don't forget conservatives. You get sneered at if you want anything better than McJob wages unless you make yourself more "marketable" by learning a valuable skill. So you take out student loans to learn a valuable skill.

      But if that gamble doesn't pay off, the conservative sneers at you a second time, for taking loans you couldn't repay in the long run. It's a neat trick, which took decades to perfect....

    68. Re:Easily available loans by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      Also, if you have to wait any length of time before you can afford a ten year mortgage that means you will be paying rent that whole time. If you're paying $1000/mo while saving up to afford that 10 year mortgage, and it takes you ten years to get there, you'll be out $120,000 in rent, completely eliminating anything you might have saved.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    69. Re: Easily available loans by callmetheraven · · Score: 1

      No because "state schools collecting $100,000 in borrowed money and giving degrees in women's studies" are 100% fictional.

      Is that you Harry Reid, or some other lying libtard?

      --
      You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
    70. Re:Easily available loans by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But in 2024, they don't get 1.5M in cash in their pocket.

      Funny how you attack others for assuming you'd never borrow against equity, while you make the same assumptions, so long as they support your assertions. If someone owned a 1.5M house free and clear, they'd be able to borrow against it to get that 1.5M in 48 hours, or less if a HELOC was already in place.

    71. Re:Easily available loans by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Let me know where I can invest my money relatively safely and get a 4% return per year, and maybe I'll take your advice. In the meantime I'll keep making payments on my mortgage, with an interest rate that's quite favorable when compared to real inflation numbers.

    72. Re:Easily available loans by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The problem is that anyone can get a loan

      Or... the problem could be that we charge anything at all for education. Like health care, some things are too important, too fundamental, and too unsuited to market forces, to remain as 'for profit' ventures.

    73. Re:Easily available loans by werepants · · Score: 1

      Meh - you aren't counting the interest break for taking a shorter term loan, or the massive equity advantage in the first years. I got about a full point off of my mortgage by going with a 15 year vs. a 30. And in that case, the financial difference between the two options was only about $300 a month. In my case, if I had chosen a 30 year mortgage, in my first year, I would've paid down the principal by about $2500. With a 15 year, I pay down about $8000. That means I pay $3600 this year to increase my net worth by $5500... a 50% return is great in anybody's book. I've also compared to other (risk-free, let's be fair) investment opportunities that could've alternatively taken advantage of that money, and nothing comes close. It's hard to compete with that kind of rate.

      Towards the end of a mortgage, your payments on principal for that 30 year will be a lot closer to those of the 15 year option, but of course, by that time you've had 15 years of mortgage free living if you took the 15 year option. That isn't really that relevant though, because how many people actually live in a house for 30 years? What matters is how much equity you're building and what the outcome is for the time you actually own the home.

      Think about it this way. If it really was so beneficial to take that long term mortgage, banks would increase the mortgage rates until it wasn't. They are offering 30 year mortgages to you at those rates because they can make a profit off of it, after accounting for risk, inflation, management fees, and THEIR opportunity cost.

      By the way, I haven't included how that 15 year home is likely smaller/less expensive, so you have less to pay in property tax, utilities, and maintenance. Or the fact that with a 30 year, if you have a downpayment of much less than 20%, you'll be paying a fair amount in PMI a month, which will be more than halved with the shorter mortgage since you'll pay down the 15 year so quickly. That counts for another $4000 in savings over the next ~10 years. There's also the fact that many of us aren't perfectly disciplined with finances, and wouldn't choose to invest consistently. Having that higher mortgage payment means that you are for sure going to put that money in (unless things get so bad you default, which means you wouldn't have been investing either).

      Bottom line is, the whole "take the difference and invest it" line is a bunch of garbage if you look at any point besides the perfect scenario 30 year time window, and doesn't necessarily hold up even then. When you are investing, you make the majority of your money at the end, and with a mortgage, you "waste" the most money on interest payments at the beginning. Which means that, if you have the house for less than 30 years and/or are not a perfect disciplinarian, you are taking it in the shorts on a 30 year, and the 15 year is going to come out better almost every time.

  4. Finland by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Finland, the government-backed student loan is tied to the student benefit, which you in turn get only for the typical length of the studies for that degree, so in practice you can only draw about €10,000 at maximum for a single 4-year degree. If your studies take longer than that, you have to pony up the extra money by yourself.

    1. Re:Finland by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Addition: during that time you are also allowed to get a free social security benefit of paying your rent.

    2. Re:Finland by kyrsjo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Similar in Norway - university is basically free (except the 100 USD/year mandatory student union member ship), and you get a subsidised (i.e. no interest before you graduate, (much) lower-than-market interest rate after that) loan for up to ~7 years. This loan works so that when you pass your exams for that semester, ~half of the loan is turned into a stipend. Don't pass your exams and you have to pay it back.

      On top of this, you have access to subsidised housing in "student villages" - these are apartments where you get your own room, and share a kitchen/bathroom with ~4-10 people - accomodation standards depend on how much you want to pay, but it is in general affordable within the budget of student loans. You can use the apartment year round, i.e. if you have a summer job in the city or you are a last-year masters student working at the university over the summer, no-one will kick you out. It's like a normal apartment, just cheaper, and everyone else in the same block are also students. There are also possible to get two-person apartments, i.e. for people who want to move in with their S.O. - with no strings attached about marriage etc.

      And on top of that, you do of as a citizen get access to healthcare (hospitals are free to use, normal doctors appointments and medicine are cheap up to a certain limit after which is it free, the dentist you pay out of pocket but it's usually not that expensive and there are often student discounts available) and disability insurance.

      I like our system :)

  5. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can thank places like University of Phoenix and Devry for this.

  6. Re:Post Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But in 2005, Congress and the Bush Administration clamped down on bankruptcy filings, placing hurdles in the path of Americans trying to file and making it more difficult to discharge debts. In particular, the 2005 law made private student loan debt, like federal student loans, impossible to discharge in bankruptcy except under a difficult to meet hardship exemption. Today, bankruptcy allows for the discharge of credit card debt and auto loans but not student loan obligations. At the same time, the law permits judges to modify loans used for commercial real estate, vacation homes, and even yachts, but not a family’s primary residence. Two of the largest investments Americans make in order to enter the middle class – in their homes and their educations – are thus excluded from the relief offered to other debtors.

    If Evil exists, this is it.

  7. What a joke by zakkudo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I delt with the delinquencies department when I was stuck living in the middle of the countryside with my mother, a fake leg and depression and no self confidence. They threatened me at home until I moved into a gay friend (uncomfortable sometimes) in another city where I started work I couldn't physically in retail. When my fake leg broke, they more or less said it was my fault for taking the only work that was around and for being handicapped. I should have died from cancer when I was 12 at that rate. I was close to hanging myself in Seattle in front of a bunch of children to protect them from a similar fate because of them.

    The department of education cares for no-one. They are only full of threats. The kind where if you tell a person in a wheelchair every day, they will eventually kill themselves.

    1. Re:What a joke by zakkudo · · Score: 1

      What amazed me the most by them was how they went out of their way to make sure they had no documentation that I was handicapped. Despite all of my letters and my phone calls. All so they wouldn't have any liability. It amazed me how the department of education automatically blocks all calls if you are delinquent. I amazes me how they can say they don't owe any of my 100k medical bills because of their threats into work I couldn't do, that eventually forced me homeless.

    2. Re: What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would the Department of Education owe you for your medical bills?

    3. Re:What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You moved into a gay friend? That is a really close friendship!

    4. Re:What a joke by gIobaljustin · · Score: 2

      Though, I'm surprised it was only uncomfortable "sometimes."

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  8. The Bubble Behind the Mortgage Bubble by retroworks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My theory: This "student loan bubble" is actually the bubble that caused the mortgage bubble. For the past 30 years, college loan professionals have been convincing 18 year olds that 5-digit debt is ok. We were "broken" (as in horse context) by the time we borrowed for our first car, our eyes glazed when buying our first house. We were trained to be numb by rationalizations worthy of drug pushers. The first thing a young person does at 18 is sabotage any hope of compound interest savings accounts, as every penny that would have been put away is spent on compounding interest in the wrong direction.

    Ok, my college experience turned out ok. But I circumvented work-study and doubled my working hours (food service). If you DO borrow to go to college, it may turn out ok, but be sure to work in a few economics and accounting classes.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:The Bubble Behind the Mortgage Bubble by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      compound interest savings accounts

      where can you get one of these?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:The Bubble Behind the Mortgage Bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At pretty much any bank in the country that pays interest on a savings account...leave the accrued interest in there to accrue more interest...and BOOM! compound interest savings account (albeit currently most earn less than 1%, so they effectively offer a negative savings rate accounting for inflation, but that's another issue)

    3. Re:The Bubble Behind the Mortgage Bubble by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      My theory: This "student loan bubble" is actually the bubble that caused the mortgage bubble. For the past 30 years, college loan professionals have been convincing 18 year olds that 5-digit debt is ok.

      While I think there is probably some merit to your idea, I think you're overlooking the much larger problem -- the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no intuitive understanding of compound interest to begin with, and certainly no detailed knowledge of how to evaluate a complex set of loan terms in relation to that concept.

      Let me tell you a little story: back in the early 2000s, I spent a few years teaching high school math and science. My first year of teaching, I taught algebra II to a class of mostly high-school seniors at a slightly below-average high school. (This wasn't some crazy terrible inner city school, but students there -- mostly minorities -- definitely had some more challenges than average.)

      This algebra II class was likely the last math class many of these students would ever take in their lives. Very few of them were likely to go onto college -- those that were at that school were taking pre-calculus or calculus. But I didn't have the "bottom of the barrel" students either: these students elected to take algebra II, which was not required to graduate -- those less inclined to take academic subjects would have merely finished off with algebra I, geometry, and a year of some general math elective.

      About halfway through the school year, when we were beginning to talk more about exponents in equations, I decided to pose some simple problems involving compound interest and loans, thinking that the general idea of these concepts might be familiar. They were not. Out of the 125-ish students I had in my sections of algebra II, only TWO students actually had even heard of compound interest, and only one of them would have actually been able to use that knowledge to make some informed judgments about loans or investments.

      My digression on compound interest was not in the state-required algebra II curriculum. Unlike a bunch of useless topics that I was required to spend a lot of time on (e.g., putting conic section equations in normal form), practical math skills weren't part of algebra II... this is probably because many of these ideas were probably supposed to be introduced in middle school or something. But poor teachers along the way meant that it was likely that most students wouldn't have any knowledge of practical math.

      So, at that point, I decided to carve a few weeks out of my school year to devote to teaching practical math that would actually get my students through their lives, even though the state curriculum told me I was supposed to do other things. Otherwise, these students would graduate that year, never have another math class again, and they would be clueless about basic financial math.

      That's the reality we're facing for MOST students who graduate from high school in the U.S. It's not that they were lured away from their ideas about compound interest by loan sharks -- they never knew what compound interest meant to begin with.

      These are the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Even with my couple week tutorial to my students, I'm certain that many of them would probably still fail to be able to evaluate loan terms in a real-world mortgage situation without significant help.

      That's what we're up against.

      If you really want to prevent this crap from recurring as people continue to make stupid financial decisions, we should drop all of the crap standardized testing about wacky geometry and algebra and whatever to graduate high school, and instead have a simple test presenting real-world math scenarios, like evaluating investments and loan terms, choosing a credit card, and constructing a proper budget and realistic plans for saving for the future. Present students with scenarios designed to sound like loan sharks, bogus investment schemes, etc. If they can't spo

    4. Re:The Bubble Behind the Mortgage Bubble by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I am intrigued by that question. Compound interest savings accounts are the absolute standard savings account in...well, I thought everywhere, outside of Islamic banking. Are you asking because you don't know what it is (which is fine, I'm not getting at you, it's not a high-street term), or because you do know but there aren't any accounts like that in your jurisdiction?

      Compound interest, in a savings sense, just means this. You put $1000 in a bank account with a 3% interest rate. After one year they credit your interest of $30, so your new balance is $1030. The next year, you till get 3% interest, but this time on your new (higher) balance- so instead of after two years you having $1060 (non compound interest), instead you have $1060.90. Doesn't sound like much, but it mounts up with higher balances over long periods.

      And it particularly matters in a loan scenario- the consequence being that interest charges will keep going up unless your payments are greater than the interest being charged.

    5. Re:The Bubble Behind the Mortgage Bubble by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with the concept. It's just that I haven't seen 3% offered in a long time. A certain national bank offers 0.01% for all regular accounts, but obviously that doesn't protect against the 2% inflation target that the FED has. That same bank has CDs at the whoppingly high rates of .15%. 10yr Treasuries are above 2%, but.. can you trust the fed's 2% target? I've no doubt they'll keep it up to 2%, but have a hard time believing that they're capable of moving it down to 2%.

      They have set up a situation where you're stupid to save, because you will lose the value of your money that way. The only way to hold its value is to gamble it, on stocks or real estate, or some kind of item of value.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. That debt is solid gold! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    It can't be discharged by any bankruptcy proceedings. You are hooked for life once you take a loan in this form. We abolished debtors prisons sometime around 1800s, then indentured labor then fought a civil war to end slavery. Then created a debt that can survive even bankruptcy chaining the earnings of someone for life!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:That debt is solid gold! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It can't be discharged by any bankruptcy proceedings. You are hooked for life once you take a loan in this form. We abolished debtors prisons sometime around 1800s, then indentured labor then fought a civil war to end slavery. Then created a debt that can survive even bankruptcy chaining the earnings of someone for life!

      Curious statement! How are chaining the earnings of someone for life? You can't pay off your education loans? Aren't they put on a payment schedule that covers a 10 to 15 year period, meaning that you should have them paid off in your 30s? And theoretically it would be a benefit as the supposed income increase from the degree should offset the loans in the first place...

      Education loans are backed by the Government using tax dollars. Back taxes are also exempt from bankruptcy. Most things the Government gets its financial hooks into you for are only removed by paying back the obligation to the Government,

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:That debt is solid gold! by khallow · · Score: 2

      Aren't they put on a payment schedule that covers a 10 to 15 year period, meaning that you should have them paid off in your 30s?

      Unless you can't meet payments.

    3. Re:That debt is solid gold! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Then created a debt that can survive even bankruptcy chaining the earnings of someone for life!

      Duh - why do you think student loans were nationalized in 2009? It's part of the push to create a very large underclass ruled by a few elites (i.e. a fascist plutocracy).

      People need to withdraw their consent for this system *before* they find themselves destitute. Instead they walk into a voting booth saying, "I'll vote for the lesser evil!" and then get a sticker for doing so, like a kindergartener.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:That debt is solid gold! by will_die · · Score: 1

      Not that bad but close. The amount you have to pay back each year is lowered if you don't earn enough money, interest does not change. Then after enough years, which is long, the entire debt is removed.
      So you can go get that doctor degree in Middle Ages Romanian literature and when you cannot find a job for that all your salary from McDonalds will not be taken.

    5. Re:That debt is solid gold! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      You can't give your education back. Where as if I can't pay for my home they can take it away from me. Given that a degree is unnecessary for most jobs anyway, I don't see why you should be able to claim bankruptcy to dump your education debt while getting to keep your degree. Seems like it would make more sense to quit telling kids they must get a university education.

    6. Re:That debt is solid gold! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You mean like a mortgage or taxes, then. I guess if you want an education and don't make the payments, it's awfully hard to "repossess" the education, unlike a home or car or other goods. Would the solution be to allow bankruptcy to fully discharge school debts? Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:That debt is solid gold! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I don't see why you should be able to claim bankruptcy to dump your education debt while getting to keep your degree

      Because you're a dim-witted sociopath. If higher education was paying off for these people, they wouldn't need bankruptcy protection, now would they?

    8. Re:That debt is solid gold! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And again, the "repossession" canard raises it's ugly head. It's nonsense on two levels: first, we don't make people destitute when they declare bankruptcy - you are allowed to keep assets such as cars. And secondly, because if the higher education was worth it, these people wouldn't need bankruptcy protection, now would they?

      Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?

      Because, contrary to winger idiocy, people do not choose to be poor? Like any grad is going to pass up a well paying job and a place to live and go live in a homeless shelter in order to declare bankruptcy.

    9. Re:That debt is solid gold! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It can't be discharged to keep the interest on it low.

      Not as low as the big banks, that can borrow money at 0% or close to it.

      there would be no market for loans in the first place because there is nothing to repossess

      As opposed to every other type of loan that can be discharged in bankruptcy? Bankruptcy proceedings that can leave you with the asset purchased with the loan?

    10. Re:That debt is solid gold! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The solution is to restore sanity to education, by accrediting more institutions and thus permitting more educators to do more educating — with competition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:That debt is solid gold! by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?

      Because in theory bankruptcy should only be issued by a court when it is needed- you can't just rock up to a court and ask for one without proof that you're genuinely destitute.

      So the real question is "what's to stop people going to university for several long years, and then intentionally making themselves ruinously poor for a period of years"? The answer being "because people are just not going to do that".

      If you think the courts do genuinely let anyone have bankruptcy for a song, then you have a complaint about the system that goes way beyond students. After all, what's to stop...anyone with any sort of debt doing it?

    12. Re:That debt is solid gold! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So what's the problem with just paying it off, as I originally suggested?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:That debt is solid gold! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      FULLY AGREED. The problem is that the State and the educational industry is in cahoots to keep it rolling nice and tight for their own benefits - not that of their customers (the general public).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:That debt is solid gold! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Then what is to stop every graduate from simply declaring bankruptcy when they graduate and be back in the good graces of the financial industry by the time they hit their early 30s - but with no debt and 7 years of saved income?

      Because in theory bankruptcy should only be issued by a court when it is needed- you can't just rock up to a court and ask for one without proof that you're genuinely destitute.

      Actually, showing up at Court, with $100K+ in debt, no assets, and a $20K/yr job would qualify you for bankruptcy - a situation many graduates would find themselves in if they went out and found a job waiting tables. You have debts far in excess of your assets and no reasonable income stream to pay off the debt. So if you could declare bankruptcy to clear educational loans, you could get your degree, take a job delivering pizzas, and in 6 months declare bankruptcy - as you have lots of debt, no assets, and no means to pay off your debt. Then, after your Chapter 7 clears, go get a "real" job based on your degree and walk away making bank.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  10. Where all that money went by Boawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The government has essentially taken over the academic loan business in order to make funds more readily available to a greater number of people seeking a college degree. The result of this easy money? Not only this debt crisis but also college tuition and fees inflated at four times the rate of cost-of-living inflation. Way to go government intervention!

    1. Re:Where all that money went by fche · · Score: 1

      You might be assuming that this is an unintended consequence.

      Why could it not be lassoing in the next generation of statist voters by offering them loan forgiveness (paid of course by taxpayers).

    2. Re:Where all that money went by fche · · Score: 1

      True - though in the long run, whether the debt is repaid by grandchildren, inflation, or default, the taxpayers will suffer for it.

    3. Re:Where all that money went by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the massive cuts in state funding of education.

  11. Cap the amount of the loans by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    About 10% of the debtors owe more than $40,000. There is no reason to take on that much debt unless you are going to medical school.

    1. Re:Cap the amount of the loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      or getting a doctorate in most any field

      I got a doctorate in math for around $-150k. Yes, that's a negative sign. And it would have been awesome, but for the fact that I spent ten years to do that.

      In the "STE" portion of STEM fields, if you are any good, there's no reason to take on debt at all for a post-graduate education.

    2. Re:Cap the amount of the loans by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      In the "STE" portion of STEM fields, if you are any good, there's no reason to take on debt at all for a post-graduate education.

      I'd say there's little reason to take on debt at all for a post-graduate education -- regardless of field -- unless you're going to a professional school. Even if you want a Ph.D. in the humanities or something, you're looking at a much smaller number of potential jobs than STEM fields. The top-tier programs in the humanities generally also offer full fellowships with stipends. If you're not good enough to get admitted to one of those programs, chances are pretty good that you won't be able to find a job even if you get your Ph.D. from some random university.

      Of course, some people want to do their "dream job," and they might need a master's or whatever in some field. If they can pay as little as possible (e.g., state university), that's reasonable. But spending more than that for graduate school, unless you're independently wealthy or someone else is paying, is probably not a good idea in the long run.

  12. Need to drop the college for all idea and have mor by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Need to drop the college for all idea and replace it with more trades / tech schools / apprenticeship and get rid of the 4+ year idea as well.

  13. Credit cards to the rescue by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    So, pay the student loan with a credit card, then declare bankruptsy... Who said credit cards are bad?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Credit cards to the rescue by mx+b · · Score: 1

      My wife actually attempted to pay one of her loans with a credit card, since she received an offer for a card with 0% interest for nearly 2 years. It seemed like a no-brainer to put one of her higher interest loans on 0% interest and try to get rid of it later. She called to pay it off on credit, and was told they do not take credit card payments. When she asked why, they gave a long story about "looking out for the students' best interests" and how credit cards are evil, and basically they won't do it. Has to be cash payments only. So, not as easy as you think. They really have the system rigged to only play their way.

  14. Re:How does the crash play out? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Pay the loan with a credit card, wait 3 years, then declare bankruptsy. It doesn't take much genius to figure that out.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  15. Re:Post Bush by tlambert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But in 2005, Congress and the Bush Administration clamped down on bankruptcy filings, placing hurdles in the path of Americans trying to file and making it more difficult to discharge debts. In particular, the 2005 law made private student loan debt, like federal student loans, impossible to discharge in bankruptcy except under a difficult to meet hardship exemption.

    The lead-in for this, which made it possible in the first place, was the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed by Bill Clinton, which is what allowed the merger that led to the legislation. This effectively turned credit card debt for students who shouldn't have been offered credit cards in the first place to be non-dischargable by bankruptcy (effectively turning uncollateralized loans into collateralized ones).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...–Leach–Bliley_Act

    Frankly, there's no difference between the parties; they both work for the banks.

  16. Lesson learned.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    330k in loan debt right here. Busted my but to get out of college near debt free, then medical school costed near 250k before obscene amounts of interest. IBR and privates total 2200 a month.... That's a house.

    This bubble can't pop, as there is no way to discharge the loans. I did something I think was fairly smart. Joined the military. 10 years and loans are gone. Then life starts over. Hoping we start a new war somewhere so I can deploy and get some tax free income to speed up the payback.

    One thing I will continue to impress upon my son is how toxic debt and specifically student loans are. My friends and I used to joke about how much our brains were worth as we racked up 6 figures in debt. Then you realize it's all a crock when your in debt prison. Moral of the story, get in and done with your education as fast and cheap as possible.

    1. Re:Lesson learned.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      . I did something I think was fairly smart. Joined the military. 10 years and loans are gone.

      Good for you. The only mistake you made was not joining at the start of med school. It would have simplified your residency process, for one. But more importantly, going in early requires a lesser commitment (IIRC). I think it's still 10 years, but the time you spend in medical school counts towards your length of service.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  17. The same root cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As much as people try to explain it away all of the economic problems we are seeing in the news have the same root cause: Money is simply a stand-in representation for resources so it can be shared amongst the populace. If the amount of resources stays roughly the same (which it does) but the population grows exponentially then there is simply fewer resources to go around as time progresses.

    Yes -- we may occasionally stumble on a more efficient use of resources but fundamentally the earth is a pretty closed system. While there is a small minority of people who go to school in the genuine quest for knowledge and understanding the vast majority are doing so for a realistic gain in the future: a better job. And why do people want a better job? More money. More resources. It boils down to our basic physical needs: to eat, to reproduce, etc. These needs drive people to consume resources and there are more people and the same amount of resources. Expect the future to look more and more dystopian unless some major changes happen.

    People who focus on the current upswing of the stock market and certain limited segments of the economy are completely missing the point: The long term trend is progressing in a pretty clear direction. There is also some snowball effect. Most of the improvements of modern life were made in part because people were well educated and didn't have to worry every day about survival. That's how our civilization formed, after all: a food surplus drove civilization. Expect the intellectual output of the human race to suffer greatly when smart people are occupied with how they are going to eat today and not busy creating the future. If drastic action isn't taken (globally) our population climb is going to have a very, very predictable outcome and it will take a great deal of time for civilization to repair itself -- if it does.

    1. Re:The same root cause by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Money is simply a stand-in representation for resources so it can be shared amongst the populace. If the amount of resources stays roughly the same (which it does) but the population grows exponentially then there is simply fewer resources to go around as time progresses.

      Fuck off, because that's not what's happening. Instead, the amount of resources and population are both growing, but the resources aren't "going around" and are instead being horded by those at the top.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:The same root cause by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If the population grows, productivity grows, total resource grows.

      Don't see why that follows.

      Hang on, you're assuming that those additional people work? That'd be nice, but I don't see it happening.

      Your idea is 300 years outdated, it was probably true when practically material wealth came from growing stuff

      The basic theory is sound. It comes down to what the limiting factor is. As you suggest, in most of history it was land - extra farmers aren't much use without farms to farm on. There have been short periods when there was a labour shortage - after epidemics, for example.

      So what is it now? It must be something, because there's plenty of people wanting work and not finding any.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Saw this one a mile off by paiute · · Score: 2

    Once the fluid pool of global investment money was throttled back from the slimy mortgage market, they were bound to look at student loans. Everyone can get them, they are not dischargable in bankruptcy, they are increasing every year, the interest rate is way higher than the mortgage rate. This will be the next source of a financial meltdown.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  19. The next bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You've heard it before, but this is inevitably the next financial bubble. You take a kid with no earning potential, saddle him with a lifetime of debt so that he can GAIN some earning potential, then move the goalposts that his earning potential doesn't earn anything, but demand that debt be paid... something MUST give somewhere.

    Alienating an entire generation of well-educated kids has not worked out well in the past.

  20. No ends justify means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think most would agree that almost nobody ever approaches college in a way that justifies the costs. We know that their are plenty of statistics that can guide a student towards a end degree that is worth something. But their are other students who simply feel college is just another four years of education. They come out with no more focus on what to do with the rest of their lives. My Daughter is struggling with this now and has a year left in High School to try and pin down what her focus of education will be. I give her credit for knowing that not just attending college is enough these days. Basic business, or liberal arts don't cut it anymore. If that's all the further they can focus their career on, then maybe a four year college is not for them. Not saying just forget about further education. But you need to develop a set of productive steps that not only will be worth the investment. But also give you skills that can provide you with a job you will want to do, and pay you what you need to earn.

  21. Re:How does the crash play out? by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a five-year lookback on bankruptcy?

    Anyway, lets suppose there isn't. You still need to convince a bankruptcy judge that you didn't enter into this amount of credit card debt with the intention of committing fraud.

  22. Because student loans are easy to get by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

    Colleges are able to charge more for perhaps two reasons. The first is that student loans are fairly easy to get. This makes it easier for colleges to bill students for around that amount, plus or minus whatever the parents and a temp job can dish out.If you look at prices before student loans, they are dramatically lower. A second factor is that colleges, and even some post-graduate training, have become mandatory to achieve a decent wage (where decent is somewhere between livable and capable of raising a family). This compels students to risk being crippled by debt in order to avoid being crippled by poverty sometime in the future. Some posters mention that "nobody forces you to take a loan", but economic and societal pressures make it pretty damn hard not to.

    This naturally brings us to a bunch of controversial solutions: apprenticeships, subsidized colleges, increased minimum wage, loan forgiveness programs, etc. I'm personally in favor of any option that enables citizens to get better paying jobs regardless of whether if debt is payed back or not. Most of the time, the government will easily make back its money through increased taxes on higher paying jobs and society benefits from having more people available to take on the advanced jobs.

  23. Doesn't matter by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you understand it or not. You still don't have a choice. Right now major employers won't even look at your resume unless you've got a 4 year degree. The HR filters just toss you right out.

    Requiring degrees has lots of benefits for employers. You get a more desperate employee (they've got a tonne of debt after all). Odds are you don't have to spend a dime training an employee. If you don't get enough employees you can run to Congress and ask for more work Visas.

    The real problem here is that the 1%ers that have most of the wealth are happy to sit on their cash until a better deal comes around. So we're the people that hold the purse strings have no incentive to push education. We used to use a 90% tax bracket to force them to "use it or lose it" and then the gov't poured that money into education. It's all about idle capacity in the economy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      No one ever obligated you to be an employee. Think harder boy. If you obligate yourself to be an employee -- and you're the only one who does -- no one said you need to go through HR to apply for a job. Think harder again.

      For the record, I didn't go through HR to get my various employee-jobs. And I'm not an employee at all anymore.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      No one ever obligated you to be an employee.

      Jerk. Not everyone can be an owner, "somebody" has to do the real work or you end up with the "too many officers, not enough privates" problem.

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about degrees, you are confusing me with someone else.

      I'm not saying owners can't find employees, in fact what I'm saying is that the number of people who can be owners in the first place is finite because a saturation point can and will be reached.

      And thusly focusing too much on the interests of the owners and/or wanna-be entrepreneurs, rather than on the employees...is wrong.

  24. University Industrial Complex is Ridiculous by hackus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Very.

    I have worked with CS degre'ed people and industrially educated people in I.T.

    I have been trying to understand whyt here is such a huge difference between CS Degree;ed people, with BS/MS degrees and Industrially educated people.

    I have come to the conclusion that:

    1) Industry educated people love their work far more than CS degree'ed people. Daddy didn't pat for their education, they come to work everyday because they want to, not because they have loans to pay off.

    2) Industry educated people are far more motivated than CS Degree'ed people. The reason why this fits my observations is the typical CS degree'ed person wants someone to teach them, which is why they went to school anyway. Industrially educated people see education more as their responsibility.

    Carefully looking at resume's, I found industrially educated people who do nat have CS degree'es statistically have more independant/free lance work on their resumes. (i.e. They know how the technology works to the extent that, they do not need someone to hand them a check every 2 weeks. They really can develop solutions themselves and sell them.)

    But, that may be due to the fact that some jobs require CS degrees and industrial educated people find that if they want to eat, they have to do it all themselves.

    So they are much more resourceful and typically better business people.

    3) Personally, looking at the education of a typical CS graduate, I am not convinced a university degree in the age of the internet is worth $120K.

    My house for example, is worth $150k. I don't have a degree, but I own a house. I think it was a much better investment.

    I still am employed in the I.T. world though, so in my opinion if you are doing hardware or software in the engineering department, or selling solutions, you can do a University program for 4 years, but you are at an EXTREME disadvantage compared to a person like me, that leverages a internet connection, does a few free lance jobs to get your career going.

    Plus you typically get to stay at home rent free while you figure this stuff out.

    By the time compare a 4 year tour through a university, you will most likely already have references, no debt and may even be employed.

    However, Universities do have their place in education, but not at the $120K level for years anymore.

    I could go back to school and would, but I would probably pay about $15K for a university degree for 4 years.

    I don't think it is worth more than that, in my opinion as both a 25 year veteran working in the computer industry, and hiring and firing many of you out there with CS degrees.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:University Industrial Complex is Ridiculous by ACNiel · · Score: 2

      Although I can't disagree with your findings, you sort of uncover a different issue with the schools. CS degree is a math degree, not a tech degree, or should be.

      Today they are a 4 year Java course. Even from schools where they aren't really, you have a lot of graduates that "took a lot of classes I will never use". Well, you shouldn't have wasted everyone's time, and went to a 6 week Arthur Anderson/PriceWaterhouse boot camp and right into the work force instead of wasting time in school.

      I don't want an "Industry trained" architect designing my bridge anymore than I want an "Industry trained" person designing life saving systems. The people working on that bridge, and coding on the dialysis machine, much different story.

    2. Re:University Industrial Complex is Ridiculous by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      I don't want an "Industry trained" architect designing my bridge anymore than I want an "Industry trained" person designing life saving systems.

      You probably don't want a college/university 'educated' one, either.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    3. Re:University Industrial Complex is Ridiculous by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the individuals who went to a 4 year institution became well-rounded enough to know that most of what you just said is pure BS, though. You seem pretty set in your delusions, but I'll try to speak to just one. CS majors want everything taught to them? Who makes it in this industry without being able to teach themselves something? Plus, this may come as a surprise to you, but your typical class requires some self-teaching. *Especially* Master's classes. If you want an A, which exhibits mastery of a subject, you have most likely gone beyond what the professor asked of you. A lot of the rest of what you talked about is addressed in part by a Psychology 101 class that speaks about motivation and ability. You won't have to worry about having your seemingly useless criteria for why people do things challenged in such a course, though, because you've already got your $150k house, and they let you hire and fire people already.

    4. Re:University Industrial Complex is Ridiculous by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Industry educated people are far more motivated than CS Degree'ed people.

      More motivated than having a lifetime of financial ruin over your head if you don't land a job and start paying off your five figures of student loans? I don't think so.

      The reason why this fits my observations is the typical CS degree'ed person wants someone to teach them, which is why they went to school anyway.

      You mean if they expect an iota of on-the-job-training, you look at them like they're from Mars. Real workers are ready to step into a new position and hit the ground running like they were there for five years.

      Carefully looking at resume's, I found industrially educated people who do nat have CS degree'es statistically have more independant/free lance work on their resumes.

      After careful analysis, I have also determined that water is wet. Educated people with educated $60k in student loans to pay for that master's degree don't have time to screw around starting at the basement with freelancing when they're looking at $800 a month in payments, on top of their living expenses and private debt payments. And that's in a good economy, not one that's been depressed for 6+ years.

  25. Loans are fine, so long as one knows what one's do by Gerogie · · Score: 1

    If not for loans only rich people would get quality education... but then again is it worth all that money.

  26. How can we give money to people... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ...because they already have money, if we don't enslave each generation with debt?

    They aren't children. They're slaves to the investor class, and it's reach the point where the next generations will never become members of the investor class.

  27. This is this generations fight by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Go to college because your parents tell you its the only way to succeed.
    2) Bust your tail and do well in college.
    3) Be unable to find any job coming out of college.
    4) Be unable to work a minimum wage job because it won't even pay off interest on your loans.
    5) Now what?

    1. Re:This is this generations fight by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      1) Go to college because your parents tell you its the only way to succeed.

      They, and all your teachers, peers, etc. Just try being a parent who wants to teach their kids that college is overpriced these days - half the country will wish they could lock you up for child abuse.

      Schools advertise the portion of their graduating class that is going on to higher education.

      Part of the problem is that teachers/etc are giving out the advice that worked well for them - 20-30 years ago it really did make sense to go to college because prices were VASTLY lower even adjusted for inflation.

      The problem is that if I take a car that everybody would agree is a good deal and add a zero or two to the price, then it isn't a good buy any longer. That's where we are with education - it hasn't really improved much in 20 years, but it has gotten WAY more expensive.

      Sure, you're probably not going to get a cushy office job without the college degree. However, when I look around at my coworkers worried about layoffs I'm not convinced it is nearly as cushy as the TV shows make it out. You don't see 10% of the cast let go every year on The Office.

      Don't get me wrong - I value the concept behind a college education. The problem is that we spend WAY too much money making it happen, the system is steeped in tradition, we pay for armies of administrators, there is no competition from start-ups, and that is just the beginning. The system needs a major overhaul, and that won't happen as long as we're letting kids who don't know better indenture themselves to sustain the status quo.

  28. Average $29K, but many grads will immediately by mpercy · · Score: 2

    buy a new car as soon as they get that first job. A mid-level car costs about $23K (Toyota Camry starts at $22,495) but they won't bat an eye about the car payment while they moan about the student loan.

    Go to a state school, live on campus, buy used textbooks, apply for any financial aid available beyond student loans. It is possible to graduate without massive debt. Oh, and get a degree in something more useful than Social Work or Ethnic Studies. There's just not that many jobs for French Literature grads or Art History majors.

    Thanks government for making student loans "affordable". All the easy money in student loans did was drive the prices higher; we had inflation in college costs because of an oversupply of easy money.

    1. Re:Average $29K, but many grads will immediately by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      How DARE you make that much sense on Slashdot???

  29. Re:Post Bush by Livius · · Score: 1

    Not exactly. The loan is an investment which has an expectation of being paid out over a long time period. Until that period has expired, it does not make sense for society to give up on collecting that debt.

    This is actually the *same* rule that applies to ordinary bankruptcy - if you borrow money to invest in, say, a self-employment business, and file for bankruptcy the next day, that debt won't be discharged because you never had a good faith intent of repaying it. There's simply a different time scale involved when the money was invested in education.

    That doesn't mean the existing law is perfect - it's quite abusive in other ways - but it's not inherently evil simply because the same principle is applied differently for a different kind of debt.

  30. Education isn't first reason for going to Harvard by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The education you get at Harvard or Yale isn't first on the list of reasons why people want to go to those schools (or maybe even second or third).

    The big reasons are the cachet of a diploma from those schools opens doors at grad schools and employers, and maybe even more importantly it's the people you go to school with are the economic elite. You get to rub shoulders with the rich and make contacts with them.

    Other schools may offer equal or even better educations, but they don't offer access to those people.

  31. What are the alternatives? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Companies don't train anymore. They won't even look at you if you're not carrying a 4 year degree. Why should they? Congress will give them all the Work Visas they want.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What are the alternatives? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're talking about, I think you've got your threads mixed up. So I'll answer you again over here.

      No one ever forced you to work for a company. And no one ever forced you to be trained in anything. If your 4-year degree is a means to work for a company or to get trained, you don't need either so you don't need it.

  32. Re:Post Bush by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    ". No collateral and no plan for how the loan is going to be paid back is required."

    They have a plan. The plan is: "I'm going to take the money you loan me, get a degree in some field that I hope will have room in it for me when I graduate, and then earn significantly more money than I would have sans the degree with which I will repay you."

    It wouldn't make sense to require a college student to make the kind of plans you are talking about, since a big part of the purpose of going to college is figure out the answer to exactly that question: "How the hell, exactly, am I going to support myself for the rest of my life and pay back loans as needed?"

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  33. Teachers are products of this system by symbolset · · Score: 1

    They start programming children to go into the system beginning in kindergarten. It is a self-reinforcing system.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  34. Ph.D in Basketweaving by BlazingATrail · · Score: 1

    How students about picking majors which will actually land you decent job at the end and only take on debt load is reasonable compared to expected career salary. If you can't plan that out, then consider another field and stop getting the rest of the world to pay for your playtime.

    1. Re:Ph.D in Basketweaving by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Comments like this are the reason I support bacteria. Its the only culture some people will ever have.

      --
      C|N>K
  35. Re:Post Bush by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Why is who signed it always so important? Tell me the party membership of the namesakes for that bill. What, guilt for supporting the party that wrote, sponsored and passed it?

  36. Mike Joy by ACNiel · · Score: 2

    No one wants to hear it, but when it requires a college degree to flip burgers, you have a problem. When people have a bachelors degree to become "Java programmers" you have a problem.

    Stupid people doing stupid jobs don't need a college degree.

    HR departments and hiring managers need to learn this.

    There is a lot of little things, not just one big answer. But it comes down to supply and demand all along the chain.

    1. Re:Mike Joy by ledow · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that I actually have a degree, I still call bullshit on you. Precisely one of my employers cared that I actually have a degree. The first one. Because otherwise they wondered what I'd been doing for three years without working while I was actually at university.

      You don't "require" a college degree to do any of those things. Never have, never will.

      Hell, the adverts *might* even say "required" instead of "desirable" but you still DO NOT NEED THEM. Rule #1 of job adverts: Apply anyway, show willing, you just might get the job. I don't think I've ever met all the criteria of any job that I've ever applied for and got. Nobody's ever really cared.

      I work in IT for schools - state and private, primary and secondary. Most of the people I work with, most of the people doing my job in other places, most of the people I network with, most of the people I've worked for, DO NOT HAVE A RELEVANT DEGREE or mostly even any degree at all. And yet, in teaching you are REQUIRED to have a degree in my country (fair enough, given your job), however all the people around them - including HR themselves and most of the IT crowd and support staff and office staff - DO NOT have a degree in general.

      The problem is that people still think that HR rules the roost when it comes to hiring, and they're wrong. The HR guy is less qualified than you are, most of the time. You can't tell them that, of course, but that's the truth. They write "degree required" because they just want someone good and not a wastrel like the last guy. Apply and see what happens. If they are genuinely stupid enough to deny you interview because of a lack of degree, you honestly DID NOT want to work there anyway (a self-fulfilling prophecy).

      At one place I worked (a state school), I made an entire London Borough form a pay-scale just for me. It wasn't stupidly high. It wasn't above my boss. It just didn't exist and the Borough HR wanted to lump me into either being a) a teacher, b) a support assistant or c) senior management. They did not have a category for me, so the head of the school made them make one, so that I wasn't subject to term-time contracts, or paid SMT-layer wages. It took months, it took a lot of arguments, but it happened because HR does NOT run the show.

      People want to fit you into nice little niches and HR are especially bad at this. It doesn't mean you have to accept that.

      I call bullshit that anything but the highest tier of professions *requires* a degree. And then I would posit that for the majority of the career path for those professions you do NOT need a degree. And if you're that good, you'll be allowed to study for a degree alongside your normal career advancement anyway, if they recognise talent.

      However, to claim that you "need" a degree to find work in general is ludicrous. If you don't have a degree and the job needs one, but you have 20 years experience of doing the job, of course you should apply anyway. Chances are they won't even ask you about your lack degree. Even the worst of HR. Because the day that HR alone determines who to invites to interview is the beginning of the end of the company they are in.

      But if you have no experience, no degree and are applying to be chief aeronautical safety engineer, then - yeah - they're going to want to see a piece of paper at least.

      Java programmers need to be able to program in Java. I've seen adverts in New Scientist for programmers who will work on high-end scientific simulations and they barely state a minimum degree, so for generic business processes? No. Not required. No matter what they say.

      It's just not true that a degree will get you jobs. I know. I have one. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been asked about it, and only once have I ever been required to PROVE I have one. But 15 years of steady progression in my career from jobs that don't need a degree through to jobs that - actually - you probably think you should have a degree for overrides any bit of 15-y

  37. Re:Leverage, Time value of money and Liquidity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Too many to read. I'm skipping the cowards.

  38. Out of Control Amenities? by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

    Well, that 20,000 square foot gym and aquatic center with 2 Olympic sized lap and diving pools wasn't built for free you know, and all of those brand new buildings, designed by world class architects no less, also cost money to build. Then you have the brad new student center with the gourmet food court, luxury spa and other resort type amenities. All of this designed to appeal to the spoiled and narcissistic undergraduates who attend these 4 year vacation destinations, financed by taxpayer backed loans, and whine when they have to work hard and pay them back after they leave school, with or without a degree. A big part of why college cost less for our parents' generation was less government financing, with the exception of the GI Bill which was limited to veterans, and more spartan facilities designed to be minimalist and functional, not luxurious and indulgent.

  39. One question by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

    The only question I have is "how do I profit from the knowledge that there is another loan bubble?"

    It seems you could short equities in for-profit colleges, but they don't represent the bulk of the debt (at least I don't think so.) As far as student loans themselves are concerned, aren't most of them backed directly by the gov't? In other words there's no Fannie/Freddie that I could short sell.

    I'm sure some savvy investors have also thought of this - does anyone have any sage insight for me?

  40. Why would costs normalize?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    And yet, costs have not re-normalized to meet that new reality.

    I don't think you understand. There's nothing to make prices "normalize" because anyone who wants a cheap student loan can get one. It's a pipeline from the government, to universities through any number of students - indeed the more students there are the better the money "bandwidth" to the schools.

    The schools don't care because they get the money. It's the taxpayers who have to tax in on the chin WHEN there are massive defaults because not many people can really make back $300k on a basket-weaving major (without even the underwater specialization these days because who can be arsed?)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why would costs normalize?? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure I understand. In theory, if you dump a bunch of money on buyers in a market, demand (and price) rises until new supply is attracted, then price levels off and falls. If the new supply comes at a higher cost, prices remain at a higher level. If the new supply is no more expensive than the old supply, prices should fall back to the previous level due to market forces.

      Fake Scotsmen aside (not necessarily your fake Scotsmen), the problem is that a perfect market cannot exist in the real world.

  41. How is that a fall choice? It's a real choice. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "nobody forces you to take student loan" is a common false choice

    1) Going to college at all is a choice, and lots of people could go without.

    2) I did go to college - but I worked all through college EXACTLY so that I could keep student loans small. I left with just 11k of debt.

    3) Pick your college with a consideration of costs in mind as well as what you want to study. When choosing a school I found that made a pretty large difference.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  42. Re:Post Bush by russotto · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At least the Democrats don't support a vicious cycle of poverty, terrorism and deregulation.

    The Democrats support a vicious cycle of poverty, terrorism, and welfare.

  43. Re:Education isn't first reason for going to Harva by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    This, exactly.

  44. Re:Post Bush by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

    Instead of voting for evil pieces of shit, I choose to vote for someone who isn't an evil piece of shit, or at least one that hasn't shown themselves to be. That means voting for third parties.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  45. Because of civilization by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Like Cars? Like Doctors? Like the Internet? Power Grid?

    You benefit TREMENDOUSLY from their education. You're just conveniently ignoring that fact because it happens to suit you right no.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Because of civilization by fredprado · · Score: 1

      All of this happened without government subsidized education, thank you.

  46. Right, but you're not answering my question by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    What alternatives does a young person have to getting a 4 year degree? If you happen to land a _really_ sweet job or you happen to be someone that can get by on 4 hours sleep a night you can slowly work you're work your way though school. Otherwise every time and all your time goes into survival.

    No one forced you? You really have no idea what life was like in America until about 1950 and what it is like in most of the rest of the world. Just google "Company Store" and "16 tons" and call it a day. Or read "A people's history of the United States". Also this. A few very lucky people have options. The rich and powerful are working to remove those options.

    So I guess I'll qualify my statement: What are the alternatives for those of use that aren't very lucky.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Right, but you're not answering my question by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      start your own business.

    2. Re:Right, but you're not answering my question by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      like some of us do, did, and continue to do. many business don't need more than $1'000 of capital. Some need absolutely zero. Most need zero experience. The only thing that they require is that you guarantee your work. That's easy to do: don't charge until the job is done. That's it. It's not complicated.

      Except that in grade six, on career day, they didn't have any presentations by entrepreneurs. So you needed to figure it out for yourself -- which is the very definition of starting your own business.

    3. Re:Right, but you're not answering my question by hweimer · · Score: 1

      What are the alternatives for those of use that aren't very lucky.

      Go to a good university in Europe that doesn't have tuition fees.

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
  47. Business management in high school by tepples · · Score: 1

    So why don't more high schools start teaching courses designed to make their graduates into halfway competent business owners? When I was in high school, they heavily pushed college prep. Has this changed?

    1. Re:Business management in high school by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      teachers get trained every few years.
      curriculum gets changes every few years.
      school board gets trained every few years.
      that means from the time something new and obvious to teach appears, it takes ten years to get into the classrooms.
      and some things are multi-year lessons that can't just be thrown into grade 12. so it's another four years until the grade 9 student graduates.
      so it's basically 15 years from when an obvious idea with zero resistance at any stage along the way actually makes it through.
      15 years ago, college was a great idea because most job openings came down to applicants without advanced education.

      today, it's not like that. today, most applicants actually do have college degrees. so competing on that front puts you into the bigger pile, not into the smaller one.

      but here's the better answer to your question. because high school is taught by teachers, and principles, and school boards. Not a single person in the entire system is an entrepreneur. Not even one. Even the private tutors for hire are teachers-by-day. The only entrepreneur in school is the guy selling drugs in the parking lot.

  48. It's an employer's market by tepples · · Score: 1

    When the labor market is an employer's market, the only thing I can think of that keeps anyone from becoming a business owner is if suppliers refuse to deal with inexperienced business owners.

    1. Re:It's an employer's market by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When the labor market is an employer's market, the only thing I can think of that keeps anyone from becoming a business owner is if suppliers refuse to deal with inexperienced business owners.

      They do, more or less. If you want terms you need a history and a big bank account.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:It's an employer's market by tepples · · Score: 1

      So what's the best way to gain enough of a history to get a startup rolling other than to be an employee?

    3. Re:It's an employer's market by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      the only thing I can think of that keeps anyone from becoming a business owner is if suppliers refuse to deal with inexperienced business owners.

      I don't know, what about finite markets/resources?

    4. Re:It's an employer's market by tepples · · Score: 1

      If there is no space in any employer for another employee, and there is no space in the market for an additional employer, the question then becomes how this came about. For example, would you claim that, say, the video game market is already full in this way?

    5. Re:It's an employer's market by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Being an employee doesn't even help. You basically have to struggle along like a second-class citizen until you're too big to fail. Or at least, moderately established.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. Data?? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Who says many college graduates buy new cars upon graduation? Most of them don't have the income and credit scores for it.

  50. Net bubble by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Ok, we know the next bubble is student loans. Now the interesting question is: is there a way to profit from it? What kind of financial product could win from the bubble burst? Is it possible to buy a CDS on student loans?

  51. Re:Post Bush by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Why is who signed it always so important? Tell me the party membership of the namesakes for that bill. What, guilt for supporting the party that wrote, sponsored and passed it?

    The first time the legislation that the GP is complaining about Bush signing failed to pass was due to a pocket veto by Bill Clinton. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of legislation that's passed by congress as a matter of posturing for constituents - "Well, as the record shows, I tried very hard" - that ends with "Jesus Christ! We never expected him to *sign* the damn thing!".

    So yeah, legislation passing is the fault of the person who signs it into law, regardless of where it originated.

    It's an executive decision by the executive branch to sign something into law - or not - unless it's a result of a veto override by a 2/3rds majority of congress. That rarely happens, since it's impossible to point fingers at the other guy, if you were all in it together.

  52. Where the "supply side" winger argument can go by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    It's not government interference in the "supply" of student loans. If that were the case, more and more schools would have opened to compete for those dollars, driving prices back down.

    No, it's the lack of government involvement in the form of the 30+ year conservative war on the public financing of education.

  53. The American way of Debt .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    It's the American way of debt, get them into debt with student loans, then with housing loans and finally at end-of-live with health insurance.

  54. simple econ by callmetheraven · · Score: 1

    But the cause isn't the schools, it's the free money

    Asolutely the exact problem with the (so called) higher education, ALSO the same problem with HEALTH CARE!

    The big-government entitlement handout asshats (Democrats and RINOS) pour money into the system and then wonder why the costs skyrocket! Simple economics - no wonder Congress (and leftists) can't figure it out.

    But it's the libtards and leftists who profit from the education cost debacle, where do you think that $1T went? Into the pockets of the leftist scum that runs the college system (read: leftist programming camps) who, after filling the minds of the young with socialist lies, fund the campaigns of scum like Obama.

    It's all there in the light of day to be seen, yet cue the libtards to start squealing "you can's say that!" in three, two, one...

    --
    You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
  55. Bingo! by CheckeredFlag · · Score: 1

    This is precisely the issue! Universities are no different than any other market; it's ruled by supply and demand. When the government provides an nearly endless supply of money, is there any surprise that rates hikes will follow? They charge more and more because they can.

  56. The funny thing is... by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    I bet that less than 1% of college grads even understood what you mean by the "Tulip Bulbs". Great education they have.

  57. Here's an idea... by nessman · · Score: 1

    College isn't for everyone. Too many kids with freshly minted degrees competing for jobs that don't exist. And not just college degrees, but worthless ones where they majored in stupid shit like history or philosophy. Good luck getting a job with that. Or social workers who make $30k a year and still have to get a masters degree to make $40k a year... and be paying that shit off for the rest of their lives.

    When I was an IT manager - I'd get a ton of resumes from recent grads with not a single day of real-world experience outside of the college intern/co-op bubble - many expecting $65,000+ salaries for a Network Admin job requiring 5+ years of experience in Windows this, Linux that, etc... with a starting salary of $40,000 that I have 400 laid off IT guys standing in line for. Some of these kids I'd have to pull aside and tell them look - you have no experience. I need verifiable references from people in my professional peer group (not the part-time adjunct instructor who taught you the basics of Cisco Routing for a semester) who'll stick their neck out for you. Go work for Company X who is a large helpdesk outsourcing company and man the phones all day long walking 62 year old people through the basics of Quicken, make a good impression, if you're lucky you'll move up the ladder there, otherwise come see me in a year or two with a few good references from that shitty job and I'll see what I can do for you. If not a job with me - a job with someone who I know is looking for a few good people.

    Truth is - I don't care what your degree says. It's a piece of fucking paper you probably paid too much for in the first place. Most jobs out there you can train a monkey to do - and Microsoft networking in the classroom, Contoso, Ltd., or Fabrikam, Inc. is nothing like Microsoft networking in my enterprise. Come to me with the basics and some verifiable experience and I'll teach you the rest. What I really want is someone with a good work ethic who'll show up on time, put in an 8 hour day, check the attitude at the door and become a productive member of my team. Not some kid with an entitlement mentality. Otherwise, everything your high school guidance counselor (sitting in an office full of chotchkies and 40 lbs overweight from free lunches with admissions folks from 50 different colleges year after year) sold you on is bullshit.

    That said - there are plenty of blue collar types who never set foot on a college campus pulling down some serious coin. My brother nearly dropped out of HS, did 2 years in the Army, and is making more $$ than my 4-year degree ass. That along with a number of union trades guys, cops, etc... all making some good money without a day of college. Skilled tradesmen are in huge demand these days - many good paying openings go unfilled because spoiled kids these days are afraid to get a little bit of dirt under their fingernails.

    These days it's the guy with the shitty blue collar job with no student loans succeeding and not the college grad.

  58. Say thanks to FDR by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

    Prior to WWII, college was a (relatively speaking) expensive proposition, only undertaken by those at the top-most rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Non-professional jobs did not call for a baccalaureate degree because there simply weren't nearly enough people with bachelor's degrees in the workforce to make such a requirement at all tenable. That all changed with WWII, and FDR's original GI Bill, which guaranteed a full ride at any accredited four year college. 16 million WWII vets qualified for GI Bill benefits. College enrolment exploded, both at existing colleges, and at the many new colleges that opened in the post-war years to service the explosive demand driven by the GI Bill. As the Greatest Generation completed their studies, there was suddenly a glut of college educated workers in the job market. Sallie Mae and the rest of the student loan/financial aid apparatus were erected to sustain enrolment and continue to make college affordable (at the point of service).

    The last couple of generations (The Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers) benefited greatly, in terms of upward mobility, relative to their parents, thanks to their greatly expanded access to post-secondary education. Bachelor's degrees are now so easy to get that all the upper-level professional jobs are saturated with degreed workers, and employers, acting in their own self-interest, are requiring them of applicants for even mundane, low level positions. The Millenials are the first generation whose parents were themselves college educated. Thanks to the greatly increased income their parents have enjoyed, Millenials very often find themselves overqualified for the same financial aid benefits their parents enjoyed. Given the evolution of the job market, the student loan treadmill is Millenials' last option to get a degree, and enjoy even a small fraction of the upward mobility their parents took for granted. A bursting of this trillion dollar bubble is the surest way to break this cycle. Already, the system has evolved to the point that a large plurality of colleges and majors no longer pay for themselves in terms of lifetime earning-power increase. As a late Gen X father of three post-Millenial boys, I say "Bring it on! Burst the bubble!"

  59. Sweet Lemons by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

    No one wants to be reminded that all of that debt and extra "education" may not have been required.
    It is less disturbing for many to claim they made the best choice where there was no good one.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  60. I wonder by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    If this "crashes" I wonder what will happen.

    Suddenly, the government simply can't afford to give out more student loans?
    Education Programs get massively cut for at least a year, leaving millions of students at home instead of in schools. The kids with rich parents are fine. Everyone and their grandmother (literally) sells assets to cover their kids' education. This pulls the publicly-trading securities market lower (especially muni bonds... that's an accident waiting to happen)

    I'm just trying to ponder the fallout of this... this will keep getting bigger til it collapses, or until something happens to slow it down.

    Would colleges simply close, forcing good professors to local colleges, leaving administration/middle management adrift (thank god)?

    --
    -
  61. Professors and administrators are crooks by poached · · Score: 1

    I recently graduated with a masters and many years after college, so I was not as naive as I was. The administrators are worthless and each of them earning a great salary for doing almost zero work. Once a year they review the applications and figure out who gets in and whatnot. Then they don't really do anything for the rest of the year. And you think your professor are altruistic and doing because he cares about the youth? No, the professor is top dog at the university. The smaller salary compared to their private sector counter-parts is easily offset by the power and influence they wield. And I would think that they probably make more than a private sector person, after factoring the reports they are commissioned to write. Each and every one of the engineer professor at this top-8 engineering school had a SBIR shop on the side where they are on the board. The company's business model is to bid on DoD Small Business Innovation Grants. I worked at one that has been in existence for 10+ years, never ever trying to use that grant to develop any commercial solutions (because that takes work and is risky!), but rather collecting the various 6 digital loans they get, pay their freshly graduated Ph.D. student (H1-Bs) a measly salary and pocket most of the grant money.

    On top of that you are paying for these professors to be condescending towards you, for the administrators to not give a shit about you. Why? If you pay for a product or a service, shouldn't you demand a certain level of service? Not with Universities!