Slashdot Mirror
Writer: "Why I Defaulted On My Student Loans"
schwit1 writes: There are some valid points raised in Lee Siegel's 1,100 word rant against college loans (if not so much against college education). There are also some bad ones. But two things are clear: the words "personal" and/or "responsibility" were used precisely zero times. Siegel, who described himself as "the author of five books who is writing a memoir about money," is hardly a glowing advertisement for the return on nearly a decade in university just to achieve a Master of Philosophy degree.
Siegel says, "As difficult as it has been, I’ve never looked back. The millions of young people today, who collectively owe over $1 trillion in loans, may want to consider my example. It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college. ... The rapacity of American colleges and universities is turning social mobility, the keystone of American freedom, into a commodified farce. If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, 'Enough,' then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."
Siegel says, "As difficult as it has been, I’ve never looked back. The millions of young people today, who collectively owe over $1 trillion in loans, may want to consider my example. It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college. ... The rapacity of American colleges and universities is turning social mobility, the keystone of American freedom, into a commodified farce. If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, 'Enough,' then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."
That's what the news media said, who won't even cover the fact that he's running for President. If you want to fix this shit, VOTE SANDERS, its as simple as that.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
"Gimme"
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I agree the current way of funding uni in the U.S. is bad. However, if the government guarantees a uni attempt at a degree, how does the government put a price on it? Is Harvard comparable to Ohio State University? Does a uni degree attempt become another entitlement? Entitlements are already breaking the U.S. budget.
Maybe the U.S. could fund degree attempts at state unis. The problem there is that states have been pulling money out of higher ed. then turning around and claiming their state schools are still state schools. The some of the increase in tuition at state schools is directly the result of the state legislatures pulling money out. The legislators then turn around and claim there is a crisis in higher education with ever higher costs for the average person.
Proof this guy is a financial idiot, "You might want to follow these steps: Get as many credit cards as you can before your credit is ruined." Yeah- get as many credit cards as you can, because you're so awesome at paying back things you owe. Although I might agree with the sentiment behind the article- schooling can be cost prohibitive, and rich people can make tons of money off people just trying to better themselves, I totally disagree with the author's reasoning, logic, and their lack of responsibility.
Need money for education, need money for health, need money to not starve to death.
Well, I thought I lived in the US, but I must be mistaken, because all the homeless people in my city have free food, free healthcare, free education, and, if they want them, free homes. Which is clearly not the US, because Slashdot keeps telling me it's supposed to be a third-world shit-hole.
It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college>
It strikes me as absurd that people are finishing their secondary education without understanding the fact that such school loans would be crippling. We must really be doing our high school children a disservice if they have such a poor understanding of economics and mathematics./P.
Why should I guarantee a college education to anyone with my hard-earned tax dollars?
Now take out that "college" part and wonder why you're allowing public schools at all.
I was very fortunate -- I went to university in Canada, where university tuition is lower. The tuition for my last semester (four months, Winter '82) broke $1,000 for the first time. My parents had also taken out a Registered Education Savings Plan for me, which kicked in, I think, $800 for the last three years of my four year degree. And I had my Co-op work terms. With all that, I still needed a loan (it was around $2,500) to get me through the last year (OK, some of that may have paid for the month's vacation I took after finishing school).
I paid $500 of the loan off in my first six months after school, then a few months after that, received a notice that they'd start charging interest if the loan wasn't paid off in full by the first anniversary. I was earning $22,000 annually, but my expenses were low, so I managed to make four monthly payments of $550 per month to get it all paid off.
It didn't occur to my to skip out on the loan, although it was a relatively small amount. The only other loan I'd taken out was for a motorcycle -- four $400 payments -- and dodging those payments didn't occur to me either. I'd borrowed money, I had to pay it back.
I think the writer of TFA is in denial. They need to mend fences and start paying off the loan. You borrowed some money and promised to pay it back. Yes, it's inconvenient, but it's the responsible thing to do. Grow up.
Because I'm a victim
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself. 1) Get a useful degree, 2) Go to a state school, 3) Quit the narcissist entitlement mentality.
Education has the best ROI, but like any investment you still have to watch how and what you invest in.
then we should limit major choices, not bury young people in debt, unable to contribute to the economy (buy a house, car, etc.: manufacturing, construction, etc.) and instead it all goes into some bank ceo's pocket. how does that help anyone, besides ones plutocrat class sucking up so much and more and more each day. that doesn't trickle down morons, it just stays in a bank, while a middle class flush with cash spends most of it, actually generating jobs and a healthy economy
i don't really understand people who view life choices as a one sided thing. the range of choices available to you also reflect your society's values
some of you idiots will say if a guy only had a choice between walking off a cliff and walking into a furnace he should be blamed for wrongly choosing to commit suicide, poor characters, etc. what choices a person has before them is a reflection of the values of a society. and obviously, our society sucks, and is getting worse. cue the morons who bark "american exceptionalism" without fucking noticing that on all of the measures of what they consider american excpetional about, the usa is actually falling behind and slipping further
for example, you have greater social mobility as a poor immigrant in a nordic countries, than you do in the usa. you know, those countries with evil socialist universal healthcare and free/ low cost higher education
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... where I thank god that I live in Germany. An abundance of colleges to choose from, all for free (except some trivial Semester fee that's well below 200 Euros that gets you rebated admittance to public events, a free public transport ticket and some other niceys along with it).
Fucking dig this: You actually *save* money if you are a student over here - even as a part-time student!! I'd pay less healthcare as a freelancer with cheap student rates (look up "healthcare" on wikipedia if you're from the US. ... SCNR) and my PT ticket is cheaper!
This is also one of the reasons I'm gonna get off my lazy ass and start a college CS track this year - it would be an insane freakin' waste not to. Just finished mit GED A-Levels with prime scores btw. for exactly that reason.
Tip from across the pond: You guys should help Lessig get through with his Superpac initiative and then redo some core parameters of your system - it's broken at to many places.
My 2 eurocents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What's your next trick, pawning a bunch of your stuff (since no one will ever give you another credit-based loan again), never paying the interest, then bitching online about how the people at the pawn shop are thieves because they sold "your" stuff?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Regardless of what has happened to social mobility in the last 30 years, it hasn't affected the author of this article because he is 57 years old. He went to college in the 80's when college was not nearly as expensive. I went to college at the turn of the century and even then it was cheap enough you could pay over half of your college expenses by working part time at minimum wage.
This guy is simply a sociopathic asshole who is just being provocative to get page views. He stopped paying his bills because he is an entitled prick, not because of the federal loan apparatus he is complaining about in the article. I have real sympathy for the problems younger millenials are having because of the rising price of college, and it is shameful for this author to exploit them like this.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money? THat is not what it is for! If so, art history would never have been an option for a major to begin with. It is to get an education. ANd that should be available to everyone for as cheaply as possible. If you get a major that is "useless", it shouldn't doom you to a fate of crushing debt for the next thirty years. Crappy job, maybe. But getting a high-paying gig is NOT why you go to school and learn philosophy.
Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...
That's all well and good. But, while you're getting an education, you need to learn the facts of life. Facts dictate that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an art education is probably not going to pay off in the short or the long term. If you can't understand that, then you cannot claim to be educated at all.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Taking out huge loans that you don't have a way to repay, to get a degree that has no potential for income, show a serious lack of judgement. Military service will fund education, often while drawing full pay. A trade certification from a community college would lead to a stable income that could be used to fund an indulgence degree like Philosophy. It would also allow you to eat after getting the degree, which is the big problem.
There are plenty of degree programs where the student loan problem is a real issue. Philosophy isn't one of those. If you don't have a trust fund or a rich spouse to support you, don't get it.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
The hundreds of thousands of dollars are a part of the problem. There is no reason a bachelors degree should cost that much regardless of the institution you go to, and regardless of whether it is in computer science or art history. The loans themselves aren't the problem, aside from enabling the actual problem - that tuition costs are being allowed to grow without bounds. There is no reason a bachelors degree that costs as much as a house should be simply waved off as "a fact of life".
I don't think that's exactly what GP said... I say this mostly because you can get a useful degree *and* learn something interesting at the same time if you do it right: Major in a profitable field, and minor in something that ignites your passions. It's more than possible to do *both*... it also allows you to pursue the minor as a hobby or side-gig until you either retire or you find something that pays you for doing it.
Philosophy, ${buzzword}-Studies, History, Archaeology, whatever... those are great subjects to *minor* in. Unless you have a fantastic gift that allows you to pursue such fields in academia for the rest of your life, or you can get published in them otherwise, they're worthless towards getting the loans paid off. You remember, that mountain of debt you bought into when you accepted those student loans?
And yes, unless you're sufficiently wealthy, you're still going to have to look out for your own future and use your education as an investment first and foremost. Life isn't fair, deal with it.
Any other route and, well, get used to being poor and in debt while you try and pursue some sort of living off of that Philo or Art History major.
Nobody owes you a living - this is just as much a truth for EE and Chem grads as it is for Feminist Studies grads.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Start a gladiatorial school for American football and stop labeling colleges as institutions of higher learning when all they are is sport sponsors.
What you CAN hold them accountable for is the outrageous cost increases that far exceed inflation and infrastructure growth.
You can, but consider that Uncle Sugar is literally throwing money at them in the form of free loans and grants... can you blame them for taking full advantage of that? I mean, people bitch at defense contractors and healthcare companies for doing it, but raise nary a peep at collegiate boards who have been doing the same damned thing all these years.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I got free college education. It wasn't at a small local college - it was at Cambridge, one of the top ten universities in the world. The government also gave me a "living stipend", enough for room and board in college and a tiny bit extra. Free college education continues in Scotland today, but has been abolished in England and Wales.
Government funding for education managed to keep prices low, maybe similar to how the NHS keeps healthcare costs lower than in the US. I never had to spend any money on money-mill textbooks because in most courses the lecturers provided us with notes, and where we needed books we just worked with them in the library.
I'm deeply grateful for it all. It feels crippling for young folks today that don't have wealthy parents, to have to start out their lives burdened by crippling debt. What an awful psychological burden for the next 20-30 years of their lives. How awful that they get turned into cogs in a corporate wheel where they have to grind through functional jobs to pay back that debt. How divisive that the children of rich kids are spared this.
I think it's a mark of civilization that we can educate our children and young adults, broaden their minds, give them a liberal arts background, let their creativity fly. So what if they learn poetry or philosophy or literature. So what if 90% of these educations we give them don't show a return-on-investment? I don't care. That's what society and civilization MEANS:
“I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematicks and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, musick, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelaine.” John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, May 12, 1780.
(As for me? I'm now a software engineer. Through my professional work I've given back lots to society, making lots of developers more productive through my language design work. I gladly pay the top rate of taxes, and would gladly pay more. I asked the tax office how to donate higher levels of tax, and the person was very confused, went off for thirty minutes to get help from her supervisors, and ultimately told me it was impossible. Every election, I always vote for the parties that will benefit the people worse off than me, at my own detriment, because that's how I think civilized people should behave. I've not seen a charity that manages to control overall education costs, or provide universal benefit, as well as the UK government did through taxes.)
At this point in time, it is becoming more and more possible to get the equivalent of a university degree without going through the university system, and this is a great thing. I agree with you about the idea of "getting an education" vs. getting vocational training.
I have a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science which enabled me to have a nice career and was definitely worthwhile financially, but I also recognize the incredible value of a general liberal arts education in terms actually knowing something useful, but which doesn't directly translate into a marketable skill. Some of my most valuable classes weren't related to my major.
The United States in particular is suffering greatly from an electorate that is woefully ignorant of the history of the Republic, and that of Western Civilization and the philosophical and scientific developments of the last two millennia (and more). This is complete omitting another problem which is the increasing political bias of universities and what they teach, but you're right about one thing. My computer science degree wasn't an "education" by itself, only part of one. However, given that university education costs have risen more rapidly in recent years than anything else in our economic oeuvre, including healthcare, shows that something is really wrong with the system, and some serious checks and balances are needed, specifically in terms of real competition.
That said, at the end of the day, I would never consider that a history degree or a philosophy degree or an English degree would leave you in a position to be able to easily get a decent job, compared to STEM- and business-related degrees, and no one can ignore those economic realities.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Colleges are part of narrative.
"If you get a college degree then you will be successful." Is played over and over.
While your success is more based on basic economics, Supply and Demand.
STEM Graduates right now are actually the few group making a good middle wage living. Why? Their is enough Demand for such work and the supply is limited so not everyone can have their own STEM Graduate. So the salary is reflective of that. back in the early 2000's When the tech bubble popped, the demand for tech workers drops (As the Y2k patches were done, and they got their fancy new websites, and they have New PC's and server, all running nice and smooth), combined with rules that open the border for Foreign IT workers, so the supply went up and the demand went down and a lot of people lost their job. Now as time went on the Demand and supply is more or less in balance now, so it is back to middle class living.
Other students may or may not be studying something that reflects the overall market's needs or there are just so many of them that the hirers can have their pick.
The issue is too many people now have college degrees today. So jobs that normally shouldn't require one, now does. Just because the pool of people is there.
Now my solution to the problem would be the following.
Enhanced vocational training: Colleges are not and shouldn't be job focused. That is what vocational training is for. This should be expanded to help meet the demand of the current set of high demand jobs. If you are happy to be a programmer, you don't need a computer science degree, and the computer science degree shouldn't focus so much to teach students how to program in today's popular language.
Harder college: Colleges have lowered the bar, so they will get students out. Because they know they need the paper saying they graduated to make a career out of themselves. A lot of students who work hard can get a degree... However that doesn't mean they have learned anything from it. Having a College degree should should have more meaning. To do this we need a higher drop out rate, but having the Enhanced vocational training, to catch the students.
Encourage companies to come up with clear career paths: This is one of the big problems today. In order to advance in a career we need to jump from job to job, getting a better title and pay each time. Companies if they want to keep employees need a clear, followable and recordable career path. Back in the old days there was a clear path from working in the Mail Room to CEO. Today we have automation system that fill a lot of spots in working up. Who needs a mail room when everything is emailed? Much of the Data Entry positions are not needed due to system integration, and all digital communication. The math to calculate and do analysis are done by computers too. So there are Gaps in the workforce meaning there is a steeper learning curve for advancement. Companies need to realize this and adjust their policies to encourage advancement inside the company.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Um not the loans are EXACTLY the problem. Tution grows without bounds because everybody smart enough to graduate from college does recognize it has great value, both in the direct economics of employable and the more intelligible things like connections with other people you make and knowledge and thinking skills that really will enable you to make better more informed decisions in the future.
A college education IS VALUABLE, exactly how valuable is difficult to quantify. So now you make large sums of unsecured monies available to young people many of whom have never seen or worked with an account balance that large before and surprise surprise they are willing to spend it. They don't have an appreciate for how much work it might be to pay that back. What they do see is that Crazy Go Nuts University has a new fancy new recreation facility and bigger dorm rooms than Podunk College. Its difficult to compare the actual education quality but dorm and recreation facilities are things you can see. Podunk has no choice if they want to continue to attract students they have to build these things.
In order to build that stuff they raise tuition, which they can because people are paying with loans anyway and everyone qualifies!
If it was not for government secured loans college cost expansion would probably mostly track with inflation. After all with the exception of some leading edge research schools, almost all the cost would be salary if you take away the billion dollar construction projects.
Price insensitivity is the reason costs have gone up, if you can't afford CGNU's 40K tuition you might very well choose Podunk's $12K tuition and lack of fancy building and giant rooms if the alternative is no college for you. If we just got rid of Sally Mea and college loans need to be secured with some kind of collateral or simply small enough lender were willing to fork over on credit history alone, the problem would solve it self.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed.
But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.
I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.
I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.
Getting an art history degree does not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Certain art history degrees do, but that doesn't mean society should pay for any expensive educational endeavor a 20 year old wants to try. Education is an investment, even if your only planned returns are self improvement. And if that is the case, it should be treated as more of a vacation which you should make sure you can afford before you venture off.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It doesn't. In state tuition at most public universities are around $10k. So for a four year degree that is $40k. I paid more than that for my car. Financial aid is widely available, so many people pay even less.
You can pay $100k for an art history degree, but you certainly don't need to.
> Don't go to college if your career doesn't need it.
The first data-point that HR uses to screen applicants, is the presence/absence of a college degree. It doesn't matter if the position is for a night porter, or the company CFO.
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
However, given that university education costs have risen more rapidly in recent years than anything else in our economic oeuvre, including healthcare, shows that something is really wrong with the system, and some serious checks and balances are needed, specifically in terms of real competition.
The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.
As an analog, consider the housing market: The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it, and what someone is willing to pay for it is a factor of their assumption about its future value and their ability to fund the purchase with money they don't already have.
I graduated college with no student loan debt; however, I sure would like forgiveness on my house that is worth 10% less than I paid for it. Do I deserve it? No. I chose to put on the rose colored, things will always be worth more in the future glasses.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
There's no gamble, student loans are guaranteed by the government. That's why everyone can get them, and that's why the cost of education has exploded.
But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.
I agree. That's why I pointed out that you can certainly minor in something that isn't marketable.
There's a big diff between getting a well-rounded education, and trying to convert a degree in basketweaving into something sufficiently profitable to pay off the debts.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Fine.. then we should just close all university courses, except of course, for MBAs. Then we'll get the maximum ROI for our money and everyone will be perfectly happy.
Or maybe, as the OP said, money isn't the end-all of human existence.
Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money? THat is not what it is for!
Tell that to my parents, and millions like them, who drummed it into my head that I would be digging ditches if I didn't go to university. This had been repeated to every generation since WWII. So excuse all of us for believing it.
They didn't tell me about laborer's unions and what licensed heavy equipment operators get, you know, the people who really dig ditches.
Which I would have enjoyed. Who the hell wants to be stuck inside all day?
Doing manual work was seriously looked down upon. But the plumber in our neighborhood had a huge boat with *two* inboard engines in it and a nice house.
And you can't outsource plumbing.
--
BMO
Congratulations, I guess, but the so-called 'student loan bubble' or even this article isn't really about you.
See, what you went and did was BUY some QUALIFICATIONS relating directly to a MARKETABLE SKILL SET.
Getting a $80k degree from a private college for something like philosophy, elementary ed, english lit, or even 'psychology' (which requires a masters or doctorate to make any $) is basically choosing to put a financial noose around your neck.
The days of 'XYZ Bachelors degree' = 'automatic middle class income' are gone.
This is because for about 2 generations now the assumption was you either got dirty for a living or went to college and got a white collar job. If you could string 2 sentences together and do long division your parents told you that you JUST HAD TO go to college whether or not you really knew why. It was just what you did.
Now, everyone has done it, 75%+ of the degrees are worthless, cost of higher ed has far outpaced inflation, the government gave away 'free money' to get it, and now countless 20 somethings are basically screwed and no-one knows how to swing a hammer or use a tape measure.
Whoops.
When the last plumber dies, we're in deep shit.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
If we just got rid of Sally Mea and college loans need to be secured with some kind of collateral or simply small enough lender were willing to fork over on credit history alone, the problem would solve it self.
The problem with this, and to some extent student loans in general, is that now you are selecting university students based on wealth and not merit. If you don't have enough collateral to secure the loan - or your parents are not willing to take the risk - then you do not get to go to university no matter how intelligent you are. Society then not only potentially loses out on the next Einstein but also it also becomes less fair leading to all sorts of problems with social unrest.
There is also another issue which the UK is now facing having introduced massive tuition hikes and an increase in loans. Some essential jobs which require a university degree, like teaching, are suddenly experiencing a huge shortfall in new graduates. The reason is that a teachers salary takes decades to repay a large loan while someone going into finance can repay it in a matter of years.
This is why university education should be funded by taxes and the funded positions awarded to the best and brightest. Those who earn more will pay more for their degree through taxes while those whose earn less will pay less. The alternative is that society will need to start paying e.g. teachers a whole lot more money in order to attract sufficient numbers and to do that it will have to raise taxes so ultimately everyone will be paying anyway but in the meantime the affected professions will be in severe trouble.
The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.
As an analog, consider the housing market: The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it, and what someone is willing to pay for it is a factor of their assumption about its future value and their ability to fund the purchase with money they don't already have.
No, not all homes are equal, nor are school tuition rates. There are a relatively small number of multi-million dollar mansions, but apartments and inexpensive homes are plentiful.
The article is more like someone complaining that a Ferrari is expensive and refusing to consider the thousands of other lower-cost options.
Too many people look at costs of a single school. There are a huge number of schools, Wikipedia saying 4,726 in the US. The median cost of schooling across all schools is $5,832 per year, which is quite reasonable. Half of them cost $5,853 per yer or less. Yet the mean is $23,874 per year. Assuming you are comfortable with statistics, those two numbers mean the bulk of schools are inexpensive, and a small number of hugely expensive schools cause the average cost to skew quite high. As a parallel, it is like a middle-class neighborhood with a small number of billionaires who moved in; those few high-value individuals will dramatically shift the average wealth in a neighborhood to so the "average wealth" means everyone is a millionaire even though nearly everyone is middle class. The median cost of higher education is reasonable. Just be smart and pick a school you can afford.
Locally, my kids can go to one of several good junior colleges nearby which all cost about $1500 per semester, then move on to one of the several state universities that cost around $3500-$4000 per semester. So about $25,000 total for the four years of education. I note that for my region at least, Wikipedia lists 11 inexpensive 2-year colleges and seven state universities, all within commuting distance. Or my kids can go to one of the local private for-profit schools the whole time. One popular private school charges just shy of $20,000 per semester. That is, one semester of the expensive (but heavily marketed and popular) for-profit private school is the same rate as a full four year degree elsewhere.
I look at the author of the article, Lee Siegel, that Wikipedia says attended Columbia University. That school is a private ivy-league school currently and charges $51,008 per year. We could get two students all the way through their bachelors degrees with the funding for a single year at that school. And he went there for probably seven years. So he probably was committed to roughly $350,000 in costs when he could have chosen a similar education at one tenth the cost or less.
So really, this is is not so much a complaint about the cost of schooling generally. He is complaining that everyone should have a Ferrari they cannot afford, even though for most people one tenth or less the cost, getting a Prius or Accord or Corolla is both affordable and adequate.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement