So apparently college loans are bad now?

[swissair81]

I'll admit I have student loans. I wouldn't have a college degree otherwise, and I certainly wouldn't have the opportunity to earn more and help my large family with a larger income. College is super expensive, and it really shouldn't be so bad. Since it is though- articles like this http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/mr-president-please-stop-subsidizing-college/ make me super mad. I would have no extra money for college if it weren't for Pell grants and Stafford loans. So I would like to say thank you Mr Obama, for standing up to people like this and giving people like me a chance to succeed.

[AnnieW625]

I don't get it either and I didn't have college loans for my BA degree, but had I gone to grad. school or gotten a degree in something more scientific than mass communication then I definitely would have had them. I consider myself pretty middle of the road politically, but it is the type of conservatism that this women's group emits just makes me ashamed to even admit that sometimes I tend to vote Republican.

[Green_Tea]

I applaud Mr. Obama's efforts to make it possible for every American who wants to attend college to have a shot at it. I am certain that in spite of having two parents with advanced degrees that all three of my kids will need to take out loans to be able to attend college.

I have HUGE student loans from undergrad and two grad degrees, and have never once regretted borrowing the money. I consider them just another bill that I have to pay each month, not some enormous burden. I will be paying those loans off well into my 50s, but think the education I received was totally worth it.

[codex57]

I agree and disagree.

If you cut funding from state schools, but fund loans, that's just moving money from pile A and putting it to pile B. Still ends up the same. So why not subsidize if you're gonna cut funding from education? Maybe not the most efficient use of money, but when has the gov't ever been efficient?

If there is any "reform" to be done, it's to reform how they inform kids on the debt they're taking on, how it isn't dischargeable even in bankruptcy, and to really think about whether it's "worth" the debt or not. This sort of ties into her argument about how if you incentivise something, it's gonna be used.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing kids so they have several years to "find" and/or otherwise improve themselves in some abstract way. Also, I don't see the harm in letting the free market dictate how private schools are affected in this. If they can't hang in the face of competition from state schools, they should close. In particular, I see this in classmates of mine who went to Stanford and got a teaching degree. There's nothing wrong with a teaching degree. Noble profession. But why couldn't they gotten a perfectly good education at UC Berkeley? Now if Stanford wants to subsidize, that's fine. But if they won't for you, and you wanna be a teacher, that monster loan should be all on you. This becomes a much bigger deal when it's not a super prestigious private school. Should we be subsidizing loans to these mediocre/poor private schools when there are plenty of perfectly good state schools out there? The most egregious examples are those for-profit schools like Phoenix that basically scam people into signing up for degrees promising them the world when the school does/offers crap and is solely in it for the federally subsidized loans.

[California]

If public state univerities and community colleges were better funded, so that tuition remained affordable, that would really help this problem. DH works for a public university and the funding cuts are drastic.

The federal and state money that goes towards loans that pay tuition for places such as National University or other "nonprofit" companies that make a ton of money would, IMO, be so much better spent keeping public universities affordable and classes accessible at community colleges. National is definitely not the worst offender, it's just the first one that came to mind.

[swissair81]

Just to clarify- I am pro government assistance for public colleges and universities. I don't think the government needs to help students go to Harvard or Columbia.

[AnnieW625]

......Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing kids so they have several years to "find" and/or otherwise improve themselves in some abstract way. Also, I don't see the harm in letting the free market dictate how private schools are affected in this. If they can't hang in the face of competition from state schools, they should close. In particular, I see this in classmates of mine who went to Stanford and got a teaching degree. There's nothing wrong with a teaching degree. Noble profession. But why couldn't they gotten a perfectly good education at UC Berkeley? Now if Stanford wants to subsidize, that's fine. But if they won't for you, and you wanna be a teacher, that monster loan should be all on you. This becomes a much bigger deal when it's not a super prestigious private school. Should we be subsidizing loans to these mediocre/poor private schools when there are plenty of perfectly good state schools out there? The most egregious examples are those for-profit schools like Phoenix that basically scam people into signing up for degrees promising them the world when the school does/offers crap and is solely in it for the federally subsidized loans.

I agree with this 100 percent and this is where I tend to get a tad conservative. I completely agree that there could be a huge issue with students who are 18-19-20 yrs. old who go to college with absolutely no idea what they want to do and then end up with massive debt just trying to figure out what they want to do and IMHO their parents or gaurdians are partially to blame, they need to be able to reign their kids in and teach them the basics that things like student loans aren't free hand outs.

I hear you on the teaching degree thing too. My sister had the opportunity to get a teaching credential from a private university in the area where she lives (University of Redlands), but decided that for more than half the cost she could get one from the local state university (San Bernardino). She even turned down UC Riverside because she knew it wouldn't really make much of a difference where she got her degree from in the long run, plus the CSU was cheaper. I have a cousin who just finished her MPH from USC and I think my sister told me she has about $40k in debt right now and public health is one of those fields like teaching, and social work where I bet it takes a really long time to pay off loans because the jobs just aren't that high paying.

I have friends who have graduated from University of Phoenix, and one has done really well for herself (VP of Marketing and Data for a local bank), but I often wonder how much of that really could have been done at a state funded university for a lot less money even taking a limited amount of units due working full time.


If public state univerities and community colleges were better funded, so that tuition remained affordable, that would really help this problem. DH works for a public university and the funding cuts are drastic.

The federal and state money that goes towards loans that pay tuition for places such as National University or other "nonprofit" companies that make a ton of money would, IMO, be so much better spent keeping public universities affordable and classes accessible at community colleges. National is definitely not the worst offender, it's just the first one that came to mind.

Agree with you on both of these statements. I wonder though if the main problem is that there are just too many students going to college and that the trend happened so fast that the colleges, and state budgets were just so unprepared and there was no other way to make the issue better than to just start cutting things.

[JBaxter]

I just was a news report saying you should try not to have more student loans than what you intend to make your first year employed.
DH worked with a "girl" ~ 24 who had over 100,000 in student debt and started at 40,000/yr. She went to a out of state school and grad school

My oldest is in college now and will come out with about 20,000 for his degree. He did one year a community college then transferred. He intends to work and go to grad school.

It blows my mind kids are going to schools and ending up with so much debt when there are MANY less expensive alternatives .

[AnnieW625]

It blows my mind kids are going to schools and ending up with so much debt when there are MANY less expensive alternatives .

This is why I went to the state university I did vs. going somewhere more expensive like USC film school. I ended up not working in my degree field (and had I gone to USC or Columbia or what not, yeah I probably would, but I also would have had crazy amount of debt and this was in the late 90s, and there was no gaurantee I'd enjoy my field either), but I worked with a person who graduated from USC a few years after me and had way more debt and did the same job as me and it was kind of like satisfaction that I did the same job as someone who graduated from USC, and I got there with way less money. Starting salary then was about $35,000.

[niccig]

I completely agree that there could be a huge issue with students who are 18-19-20 yrs. old who go to college with absolutely no idea what they want to do and then end up with massive debt just trying to figure out what they want to do and IMHO their parents or gaurdians are partially to blame, they need to be able to reign their kids in and teach them the basics that things like student loans aren't free hand outs.



I'm back in school and just finished my undergraduate pre-requisite classes, many of my classmates are undergraduates and some are coming back like me.

I think part of the problem is that the numbers thrown around for tuition make no sense to some of the undergraduate students. Yes, they can add up the total amount of their school loans and there are calculators to work out your monthly payment after you graduate. But what's lacking is an idea of what their other monthly expenses will be. Yes, they know their expenses now, but they don't have an idea of how much a mortgage will cost per month, how much child care will cost and how much it will cost if only one parent works, and how much it costs to support a family.

They see the repayment will be $500 a month which doesn't sound like too much when they look at how much they think they'll earn. I had this exact conversation with someone considering my program at an expensive school. You can pay $8k a year at a CSU for 2-3 yrs for the masters program or pay $40K per year at a private school for 2-3 years. Yes the private college is higher ranked, but in this field, that really doesn't matter.

I know DH's aunt and uncle have tried to do this with DH's cousin, but he still choose an expensive school, it does have a better program for what he wants. Will it be worth it? I don't know. And that's another issue - is the better program really worth it, for many things, I don't think it is. I do think 18 year old and many families get blinded by the "best school" image.

[niccig]

It blows my mind kids are going to schools and ending up with so much debt when there are MANY less expensive alternatives .

I think this is going to change. Problem is, it's getting more difficult to get into the cheaper alternatives as many other people are trying to get into those as well.

I just had a meeting with my adviser for graduate school as I start in the Fall. I got a 4.0 in all my pre-requisite classes. She told me they had over 200 applications for 45 spots and rejected people with 3.7 and 3.8 GPAs. They're very competitive to get into as one of the cheapest institutions to get this Masters. They've never seen this level of demand before.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

I just want to say that Jeana did an OUTSTANDING job of helping her son understand approximately how much money he will make out of college so that his debt number becomes more "real' relative to what he will actually earn. Also, in helping to shepard him into a program where her will likely always be employable. It really is up to us to help our
children to make smart choices regarding the cost v benefits of all the college choices.

[randomkid]

I just was a news report saying you should try not to have more student loans than what you intend to make your first year employed.
DH worked with a "girl" ~ 24 who had over 100,000 in student debt and started at 40,000/yr. She went to a out of state school and grad school

My oldest is in college now and will come out with about 20,000 for his degree. He did one year a community college then transferred. He intends to work and go to grad school.

It blows my mind kids are going to schools and ending up with so much debt when there are MANY less expensive alternatives .

Not necessarily true. It depends on what you want to do. I am a Physical Therapist with a bachelor's degree. The profession moved to a master's shortly after I graduated, which I thought was fine. Now, it is a doctorate program which is ridiculous and misguided, IMHO. However, people still want to be PTs and HAVE to go through a doctorate program in order to be one. It is very difficult to work while in PT school and many of the students work weekends, even when they are doing a full time internship that is 40 hrs/wk. I currently know someone who is just graduating with his DPT. His student loan debt is $100K with in-state tuition. He was offered a job at the hospital where we work (he is currently a PT tech) at $25/hr - that's $52K/yr. So, he plans to work 2 per diem jobs where the hourly rate is higher and forego benefits in order to make ends meet and pay his student loans. He told me that while in college, he paid nearly $500/month just to stay afloat and keep the debt from increasing due to the interest rates. Average starting salary for a PT is around $57K. Sometimes, there isn't a less expensive option.

[niccig]

I just want to say that Jeana did an OUTSTANDING job of helping her son understand approximately how much money he will make out of college so that his debt number becomes more "real' relative to what he will actually earn. Also, in helping to shepard him into a program where her will likely always be employable. It really is up to us to help our
children to make smart choices regarding the cost v benefits of all the college choices.

I totally agree. That's what I said when many of my classmates don't get the real costs and how it all adds up. Either they didn't have someone to help them understand, or they didn't take it in when they were told. Not believing the costs of loans I think is part of not educating kids about finances, realities of working life, getting the guidance they need to make these major life decisions..

I plan to do the same with DS as Jeana did - I wasn't criticizing her at all. I do think though that those cheaper options will become more difficult to get into - I'm already seeing it at the Cal State I go to.

[swissair81]

I think this is going to change. Problem is, it's getting more difficult to get into the cheaper alternatives as many other people are trying to get into those as well.

I just had a meeting with my adviser for graduate school as I start in the Fall. I got a 4.0 in all my pre-requisite classes. She told me they had over 200 applications for 45 spots and rejected people with 3.7 and 3.8 GPAs. They're very competitive to get into as one of the cheapest institutions to get this Masters. They've never seen this level of demand before.

My local community college now requires a 3.9 GPA to get into the nursing program, for a very limited number of slots. When I went, it wasn't anywhere near that and there were 200 spots. It's unfortunately much easier to get into the 4 year programs which are much more expensive. I went to CC so I could pay for school myself. Now everyone is doing that, so they have to be more selective. The other thing that is happening is that educational requirements for entry level jobs are rising. There is a movement in the nursing profession (again as a for instance) to make a Masters degree the minimum for bedside care and that nurses need to have a Doctorate to be an Advanced Practice Nurse. Way to throw a good career down the drain by making it prohibitively expensive and not accessible to people who want to get an honest job that actually pays money.

OTOH, for nurses who plan to go into underserved areas and professions, there is a loan forgiveness program for promising a certain amount of work time to pubic and state institutions that serve the needy and uninsured. So it is possible for me to not wallow in debt for the rest of my life.

[niccig]

Sometimes, there isn't a less expensive option.

I wonder if the added costs of all this extra school will impact the number of people gong into the fields. A friend wants to be an audiologist, but it's an AuD and the extra costs of school + extra time he said aren't worth it for him to pursue. He's going to do Masters to be a SLP. He would be really good as an audiologist.

[codex57]

Not necessarily true. It depends on what you want to do. I am a Physical Therapist with a bachelor's degree. The profession moved to a master's shortly after I graduated, which I thought was fine. Now, it is a doctorate program which is ridiculous and misguided, IMHO. However, people still want to be PTs and HAVE to go through a doctorate program in order to be one. It is very difficult to work while in PT school and many of the students work weekends, even when they are doing a full time internship that is 40 hrs/wk. I currently know someone who is just graduating with his DPT. His student loan debt is $100K with in-state tuition. He was offered a job at the hospital where we work (he is currently a PT tech) at $25/hr - that's $52K/yr. So, he plans to work 2 per diem jobs where the hourly rate is higher and forego benefits in order to make ends meet and pay his student loans. He told me that while in college, he paid nearly $500/month just to stay afloat and keep the debt from increasing due to the interest rates. Average starting salary for a PT is around $57K. Sometimes, there isn't a less expensive option.

Is "picking something else" not an option? I understand this. My sis recently graduated. Crapload of loans. It's a burden. She can make it though. No loans from undergrad (scholarship). However, the prereqs for PT generally work for other programs also. If it was too expensive, you may have to make the choice to do something else. Perhaps nursing? Something else where you can afford the cost of living along with student loan repayments.

If schools price themselves out, then they'll be forced to make changes. You mentioned how it used to be a bachelor, then masters, now doctorate. Why? Cuz PT industry is trying to raise the "prestige" to that of MDs. Frankly, I think that's asinine. So, why not let them price themselves back to sanity? After a certain point, if people stop applying, they'll have to adjust.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

I totally agree. That's what I said when many of my classmates don't get the real costs and how it all adds up. Either they didn't have someone to help them understand, or they didn't take it in when they were told. Not believing the costs of loans I think is part of not educating kids about finances, realities of working life, getting the guidance they need to make these major life decisions..

I plan to do the same with DS as Jeana did - I wasn't criticizing her at all. I do think though that those cheaper options will become more difficult to get into - I'm already seeing it at the Cal State I go to.

No, I totally did not think you were criticizing her!

[niccig]

You mentioned how it used to be a bachelor, then masters, now doctorate. Why? Cuz PT industry is trying to raise the "prestige" to that of MDs. Frankly, I think that's asinine. So, why not let them price themselves back to sanity? After a certain point, if people stop applying, they'll have to adjust.

Some of the increase in education requirements is because the field had become more technical. I'm not sure about PT, but an SLP I know told me some of what they cover in undergrad used to be in the Masters (min. qualification to practice), but as the field is now more technical, some of the Masters coursework became undergrad to make space for the new coursework at the Masters level.

[randomkid]

I agree with this 100 percent and this is where I tend to get a tad conservative. I completely agree that there could be a huge issue with students who are 18-19-20 yrs. old who go to college with absolutely no idea what they want to do and then end up with massive debt just trying to figure out what they want to do and IMHO their parents or gaurdians are partially to blame, they need to be able to reign their kids in and teach them the basics that things like student loans aren't free hand outs.
:yeahthat: Having 2 in college right now, I have to agree that the parents need to be guiding their children. Just because they are out of high school and likely out of the house doesn't mean the parenting stops. DSDs live with us in order to save money while they attend college. Both wanted to move out on their own their freshman year and believe me, we had to work hard to get them to see the benefits of living at home. DSD1 just completed her Jr. year and insisted on moving out even though we tried to get her to understand the benefits of staying here for another year. She wants to go to dental school, so has a long road and a lot of expense ahead of her. We had her calculate out how much she thought her monthly expenses would be, then add $100 to that. She figured out that she would have to work a minimum of 20 hours/wk to pay her bills. I pointed out that this meant 20 hrs/wk consistently. Living here, she would sometimes work only 4-6 hours in a week when she had a lot of exams coming up, esp finals. Even after having her do all of that, she still decided to move out. She has been able to save a lot of money and we feel she is just going to blow it. She only has one more year, then off to dental school if she is accepted. There isn't one local, so she would then be out on her own.

BTW, what ever happened to kids working to pay for school? I know tuition is higher, but working your way through school is an option. DSDs have partial scholarships, but still have to pay apprx $1500/semester for undergrad. That doesn't include books and other expenses. We just can't pay it for them. We paid child support for years and are now playing catch up. Even though we don't have that expense anymore, we still support them by having them live here, buying one of them a car and paying her insurance, etc. DD is in private school and I am not sacrificing that. So, they work and pay for their own tuition. I get it that not all kids could live at home, but a lot of them that go to DSDs' university are local kids who just don't want to drive the 20 or 30 minutes from home and they want to feel independent. So, they take out loans for undergrad. They need to get jobs and apply for every scholarship they can or live at home if that is an option.

[niccig]

No, I totally did not think you were criticizing her!

Cool. I'm a little punch drunk from lack of sleep, so wasn't sure. ;)

So on the topic of giving kids guidance, if you don't have a parent like Jeana, who helps you with this? I didn't do high school here in USA, so not sure what college guidance people get. I was told "you're valedictorian, great at English and History - go be a lawyer." So off to law school I went - it's undergraduate degree in Australia. Huge mistake. No one ever said "hey, you're great in biology too, what do you think about the health care field. " Not even my parents, both college educated.

[AnnieW625]

SwissAir, I had a friend in college who got a BS in biology and then went through the CC for the RN program. It was mighty brutal back then too. Had another friend who went straight into a 4 yr. university nursing program, and honestly she is the only person I have ever known to do that, and the only one from our high school, there were 500 students in our class. Good for you for getting through it.


I think this is going to change. Problem is, it's getting more difficult to get into the cheaper alternatives as many other people are trying to get into those as well.

I just had a meeting with my adviser for graduate school as I start in the Fall. I got a 4.0 in all my pre-requisite classes. She told me they had over 200 applications for 45 spots and rejected people with 3.7 and 3.8 GPAs. They're very competitive to get into as one of the cheapest institutions to get this Masters. They've never seen this level of demand before.

Just curious, but how many former and or laid off teachers do you have in your program? The only educators not getting laid off in our district are either special ed. teachers or SLP teachers. I have a friend who is an SLP. I am sure there are other districts who are laying off in our areas and aren't laying off specialized credentials. I am pretty sure that is why there were soo many applicants. Last year at my sisters credential ceremony a lot, probably close to half of the graduates were either special ed., or administration degree specializations. Before my friend who was a high school librarian moved she saw the writing on the wall and saved her job because she was taking SLP classes.

[niccig]

BTW, what ever happened to kids working to pay for school?

Lots of kids still do this. Thinking about all my classmates, they all work, except for me and a couple of other people who are also married and have families. They still need some college loans though as the working is to pay for living expenses. I know a few classmates that live at home and work to pay for tuition.

[dcmom2b3]

I wonder if the added costs of all this extra school will impact the number of people gong into the fields. A friend wants to be an audiologist, but it's an AuD and the extra costs of school + extra time he said aren't worth it for him to pursue. He's going to do Masters to be a SLP. He would be really good as an audiologist.

I think that it may be already. NOT trying to start an immigration policy debate, but we give many non-immigrant visas to people with nursing, PT and other skilled professions in order to meet our economy's demand for those jobs. Perhaps constrained access to (better? more affordable?) education by US citizens is a part of the reason why?

[codex57]

Some of the increase in education requirements is because the field had become more technical. I'm not sure about PT, but an SLP I know told me some of what they cover in undergrad used to be in the Masters (min. qualification to practice), but as the field is now more technical, some of the Masters coursework became undergrad to make space for the new coursework at the Masters level.

Some maybe, but not all. My sis was whining about how hard her classes were. I asked her to describe it to me. I thought it sounded awfully hard. I ran it by a couple doctor friends. Some of that crap was harder than what they went through at med school. Basically, they might end up needing maybe 10% of what they were forced to learn. It went waaaayyyy beyond what a PT needs. They ended up readjusting for incoming classes, but to me, it showed that the PT schools are trying to get too big for their britches.

[niccig]

Just curious, but how many former and or laid off teachers do you have in your program? The only educators not getting laid off in our district are either special ed. teachers or SLP teachers. I have a friend who is an SLP. I am sure there are other districts who are laying off in our areas and aren't laying off specialized credentials. I am pretty sure that is why there were soo many applicants. Last year at my sisters credential ceremony a lot, probably close to half of the graduates were either special ed., or administration degree specializations. Before my friend who was a high school librarian moved she saw the writing on the wall and saved her job because she was taking SLP classes.

There's several ex-teachers and several recent grads with certifications. There's also many students that are getting their undergraduate degree in communication disorders. Because there are jobs, more and more people want to do the major. I've had professors comment on how popular the classes are. One professor tells students that they have to want to do the work because of the work and not because of the paycheck as it's so much work to get your license. The classes are also very difficult, a lot of science. It's not playing with kids on the floor - something the same professor goes to pains to educate students so they know what they're taking on.

[randomkid]

Is "picking something else" not an option? I understand this. My sis recently graduated. Crapload of loans. It's a burden. She can make it though. No loans from undergrad (scholarship). However, the prereqs for PT generally work for other programs also. If it was too expensive, you may have to make the choice to do something else. Perhaps nursing? Something else where you can afford the cost of living along with student loan repayments.

If schools price themselves out, then they'll be forced to make changes. You mentioned how it used to be a bachelor, then masters, now doctorate. Why? Cuz PT industry is trying to raise the "prestige" to that of MDs. Frankly, I think that's asinine. So, why not let them price themselves back to sanity? After a certain point, if people stop applying, they'll have to adjust.

Sure, choosing something else is an option, but is it fair for someone to give up their dream due to expense? I know students that are doing this. One girl I know really wants to be a PT, but has said she doesn't think she is going to apply because of the expense. However, she has no idea what she wants to do. When I was applying to PT school, it was highly (and still is) competitive. I had to come up with an alternative in case I didn't get accepted. I had decided to go for SLP, but would have had to take another semester of classes. I wasn't happy about it, but that's what I would have done. Sometimes, you just KNOW what you want to do. In 21 years of being a PT, I have never once questioned my choice. However, I am really glad that I am not an SLP. Nothing against them, they are awesome, but it's not what I would want to do.

You'd have to ask the APTA why they want the DPT. It's not the schools, it is the profession. Frankly, many therapists and even students have no idea what this will accomplish. I don't think they want to have the "prestige" of MDs, but they are trying to protect the profession. I don't think it takes a DPT to do that, though. There are MDs, chiropractors, osteopaths, etc who bill for PT services even though there is not a PT performing them. They do these procedures in their office and are really doing a disservice to their patients because what they are billing for is not really PT and is not being performed by a trained, licensed therapist. If the insurance companies think a doctor can do PT in their office, that is a threat to our profession. We have direct access, which means being able to treat without a doctor's prescription, but it really has never been put into practice for a multitude of reasons. I think the APTA is trying to elevate the profession to a level of being more independent of physicians, but I don't think the DPT is the way to do it. And, I do think you are right. There is likely going to be a shortage of PTs because people will stop applying. I don't know that they will ever go back to a master's level, but they will have to do something. I do think it should be a Master's degree. I know that I sure as hell worked hard enough to have one, but only earned a Bachelor's as my program hadn't transitioned yet. I lived with vet students who would end up with a doctorate and go on to make a lot more money than me, but I worked a heck of a lot harder than they ever did (and they even told me so)!

[codex57]

Sure, choosing something else is an option, but is it fair for someone to give up their dream due to expense?

:shrug: It's a reality. I want a Ferrari. Is it fair for me to give up my dream of one cuz of expense? Why is one entitled to their dream?

They're already altering the makeup of undergrad classes by race, even if they may not be as qualified. Do we want to do this for grad schools even (if it's not already being done)? Particularly schools that will produce professionals who hold's someone's health/life in their hands?

[tribe pride]

This topic is something DH and I talk about a lot (he teaches hs). I'm really conflicted about what the reasons are for the rising costs of college, how to address them, and about how we ought to counsel DS' when the time comes for applying to college.

Niccig, to answer your question about college counseling/guidance for teenagers here in the US, I think it totally depends on where you go to school. My school (a very average HS in NY) had virtually no college counseling. Almost everyone went in state, and there was no advising about finding a good fit, what majors to consider, applying for scholarships. Thankfully, my parents were really on board with applying to colleges. I ended up going to a public university in another state (so paying out of state tuition), and majored in what I loved- history. While appreciate all of the help my parents gave me in applying to college, I have to say that there was no discussion about what I should do after graduation. None. Never did internships during the summer in potential fields. I never visited career services, and spent a few years after graduation doing jobs I enjoyed, but kind of floundering when it came to long-term plans. Once I did decide what I wanted to do and got a Masters degree in it, I ended up becoming a SAHM. Ah, well! :)

DH, OTOH, had tons of college counseling, both in school and from his parents. Multiple summer internships. And graduated with a job he loved. Yes, he had connections. But he also had parents, teachers, and counselors who understood finances, the importance in taking initiative in finding a job, etc. And he had no loans for undergrad or grad school, whereas I had to take out loans for both. And I'm very thankful for my gov't subsidized loans- I wouldn't have been able to attend the college I did, otherwise- my parents simply didn't have the money to pay for it. I wouldn't change my decision to attend the school I did- I loved it, learned a ton, and grew enormously as a person. But I wish that I had gone into it with a clearer understanding of what I was getting into financially, and had been given clearer counseling about thinking about life after college- job prospects, finances, etc. I would have definitely taken advantage of more of the opportunities afforded me.

Anyway, that leads me to the issue that DH and I discuss a lot. I think a large part of the problem is that our society has become so commodified. Our market economy has infiltrated so much of the rest of society, that we now take a market approach to just about everything, including education. So rather than valuing education for the sake of enriching the mind, learning to think critically, growing in understanding of the world, etc., we look at it and ask, "What am I getting out of this?" and "Am I getting my money's worth." Which are obviously important considerations when spending large amounts of money for college, but I think it's easy to lose sight of education for education's sake in the process.

In taking a market approach to education, our society has essentially created a "need" for people to go to college in order to get degrees that will lead to well-paying employment. And frankly, I think that the gov't, colleges and universities, and private loan companies have virtually no incentive to lower the cost of college- they're all making money off of the system. And students and their families suffer. It's like the gov't encouraging private loan companies to give out more and more loans so that people could buy houses- it just led to an increase in prices, then the housing bubble, and now the bust as more and more people got in over their heads and couldn't make their payments. Often through no fault of their own, and because they weren't aware of what they were getting into.

I've read multiple places (can't remember where at the moment) discussing how the push for more and more young people to attend college has effectively led to the "dumbing down" of education, making HS, BA and BS degrees less prestigious. DH teaches AP History, and has shown me essays and DBQ's from AP exams 20 or 30 years ago. It is amazing to see the difference between those essays and the ones kids take today. They were a lot harder 20 years ago. A LOT. There is incredible pressure on teachers in some schools to pass and graduate kids who may not be ready, so that those kids can go on to college. So the value of a diploma is lessened, and there are people who have 3.8 GPAs or whatever, but their GPA essentially doesn't mean as much as it used to. So then if a HS degree isn't worth much, everyone has to get a BA or BS. But if everyone is getting a BA or BS, then you have to get a Masters in order to get ahead. The cycle just keeps going.

Frankly, sometimes I think that much of the problem stems from not having rigorous enough programs in HS, so that a HS degree is actually worth something more. And this may not be a popular opinion, but actually encouraging fewer kids to attend college, at least not at first. Some might be better off (financially as well as vocationally) doing apprenticeships for a few years to determine what they want to pursue and what subjects they love. Or even going to vocational school. The push by gov't and loan institutions to enroll more kids in college, while laudable on it's surface, I think raises the costs of college, hampers students' financial prospects, and devalues the Bachelors and Masters degree.

Sorry that was so long, I kind of got on a soapbox!

[JBaxter]

Right now Logan is in the Respiratory Therapy program at Salisbury University. He had originally gone wanting to do Nursing but was wait listed this semester. He had a choice of spending another year in school or going with his second choice. His ultimate goal is going back to PA school and either degree is an acceptable under grad degree.
He wants to work part time/full and go back to school.

Connor has better grades than Logan and will also be attending Salisbury University in the fall majoring in Medical Lab science w/ the goal of also attending PA school.

My boys will all attend state schools unless they get some amazing scholarship. I will pay 1/2 of their first 4 yrs of college. I will LOAN them other monies but it will be paid back as any other {very low/no interest} loan. This was made clear

[wellyes]

Anyway, that leads me to the issue that DH and I discuss a lot. I think a large part of the problem is that our society has become so commodified. Our market economy has infiltrated so much of the rest of society, that we now take a market approach to just about everything, including education. So rather than valuing education for the sake of enriching the mind, learning to think critically, growing in understanding of the world, etc., we look at it and ask, "What am I getting out of this?" and "Am I getting my money's worth." Which are obviously important considerations when spending large amounts of money for college, but I think it's easy to lose sight of education for education's sake in the process.

Thanks for saying this. Education shouldn't always be looked at only as like a vending machine.... if I put in this number of dollars, I will get that reward. That can and should be a consideration. But I also think the college years and higher education in general should be dramatically formative and rewarding over the long term.

The popular idea now seems to be you should pay the minimum possible to get the maximum career benefit, and anyone who pays more is a fool. I wonder how many people who think that live in the cheapest house they can find, drive the cheapest vehicle with enough seats for their family members, don't buy fresh produce because fast food gives you many more calories per dollar spent. I am not likening state colleges to McDonald's, that's not my point, just that money is not the only factor in major life decisions.

[niccig]

Thanks for saying this. Education shouldn't always be looked at only as like a vending machine.... if I put in this number of dollars, I will get that reward. That can and should be a consideration. But I also think the college years and higher education in general should be dramatically formative and rewarding over the long term.
.

I agree with it being formative and rewarding, but you have to be able to get a job at some point. After getting out of law school, I finished my BA in History. I loved it. I want DS to have similar experience and not be just about what job he'll have. But at some point, it will be about that job.

I knew when I graduated that a history degree alone wasn't going to get me a job, unless I decided to pursue a PhD or go into some part of the government sector. I wasn't sure on that, so I did graduate school to be a librarian. This was 17 years ago. If I knew then that I would need a plan beyond my BA in History, then kids today graduating with a history degree have to know they need a plan.

I think we're going to try to balance it with DS. Yes, do something you enjoy and see college as time of growth, but at some point you'll graduate and you need to get a job, so spend time thinking about that as well.

[Green_Tea]

Education shouldn't always be looked at only as like a vending machine.... if I put in this number of dollars, I will get that reward. That can and should be a consideration. But I also think the college years and higher education in general should be dramatically formative and rewarding over the long term.

The popular idea now seems to be you should pay the minimum possible to get the maximum career benefit, and anyone who pays more is a fool. I wonder how many people who think that live in the cheapest house they can find, drive the cheapest vehicle with enough seats for their family members, don't buy fresh produce because fast food gives you many more calories per dollar spent. I am not likening state colleges to McDonald's, that's not my point, just that money is not the only factor in major life decisions.

Thank you for saying this. My four years at an expensive, private Jesuit college made me who I am as a person. The time I spent there was worth every dollar and more, and I wouldn't change a thing, even my major which I assume most people would think was frivolous and indulgent. I didn't (and don't) consider college to be merely a means to employment but an essential experience in its own right, even though it left me with large loans to repay. When the time comes, I will discuss the pros and cons of different college pricepoints with my kids, but I will not steer them toward the cheapest school even if "all they want to be" is a teacher. I will encourage them to look for the best value AND a place that will help shape them as young adults and thinkers. I and they are not playing just for a piece of paper to help them get the best job possible, but for them to have a great, enriching education. If they want to work at CVS when they're done, I still wouldn't consider those four years of college a waste.

I am now in a grad program at a state school (though not the highly regarded state university - I cut corners for the sake of economy, and regret it!), and can tell you first hand that the quality of the education the undergrads (who I took a few prereqs with) are receiving is THE PITS. Sure, they'll graduate with a degree in Ed and will become teachers and will have much less debt than the kid who graduates from Yale and becomes a teacher. But the kid who graduates from Yale will have had a much more sophisticated and rich experience that will influence the rest of her life, and that's not something I think you can quantify as easily as calculating her loan payments.

I'm sure I'll get slammed for having this perspective on higher ed, but honestly, I'm surprised that so many people take such a hard, cost benefit analysis approach to what I think is one of the most pivotal, formative periods of our kids' lives.

ETA: I think people seriously underestimate the how hirable someone who is well spoken, intelligent and has a well-rounded education is. Sure, there are fields that require a specialized degree, but when I was in a position to hire my staff at my last job, a person's major was not something I considered. Their ability to hold their own when dealing with our constituents and their writing skills were MUCH more important. I hired history majors, English majors, and even a woman who studied classical voice with a speciality in liturgical music. I have NEVER had a problem getting a job, and my major was theatre.

[niccig]

I'm sure I'll get slammed for having this perspective on higher ed, but honestly, I'm surprised that so many people take such a hard, cost benefit analysis approach to what I think is one of the most pivotal, formative periods of our kids' lives.



I am taking a cost benefit analysis with my degree. We have DS's college to save for, and even if I could move to a more prestigious college in my field, I still wouldn't take out the loans of 100K for a job that will pay 60-70K. As this is a do-over, I don't have time in the workforce to pay off those kind of loans. I've already gone the prestigious route and didn't get what I needed out of it - not the fault of the college or what it offered, but I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. My current college is a CSU, and for what I want to do, it is providing an excellent education in my field, and at 1/3 the cost. It is a bargain for what I'll do.

With DS, I am not sure what will happen. College for him in 10 yrs is expected to be 200K for equivalent of 4 yrs UCLA according to the calculators I've used. 200K in loans is a ridiculous amount of money for ANY major. That amount of debt is crippling and if college costs that much, people will be asking if it's worth it. I agree that college is more than just a job at the end, but I can't see how people can take out that much debt and not be able to get any work in the present economy, have interest on their loans and not be able to pay them back, interest increases, fines and penalties accure. It's not sustainable.

[Green_Tea]

I am taking a cost benefit analysis with my degree. We have DS's college to save for, and even if I could move to a more prestigious college in my field, I still wouldn't take out the loans of 100K for a job that will pay 60-70K. As this is a do-over, I don't have time in the workforce to pay off those kind of loans. I've already gone the prestigious route and didn't get what I needed out of it - not the fault of the college or what it offered, but I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. My current college is a CSU, and for what I want to do, it is providing an excellent education in my field, and at 1/3 the cost. It is a bargain for what I'll do.

With DS, I am not sure what will happen. College for him in 10 yrs is expected to be 200K for equivalent of 4 yrs UCLA according to the calculators I've used. 200K in loans is a ridiculous amount of money for ANY major. That amount of debt is crippling and if college costs that much, people will be asking if it's worth it. I agree that college is more than just a job at the end, but I can't see how people can take out that much debt and not be able to get any work in the present economy, have interest on their loans and not be able to pay them back, interest increases, fines and penalties accure. It's not sustainable.

I totally understand why you chose the school you did for your "do over", Nicci - it makes perfect sense, and I am glad you are happy with the quality of the education you're receiving. I did the same thing (but with less satisfaction, unfortunately)!

I also agree that the cost of college is out of control. I know that there will be colleges that will never be an option because of the cost. But I also won't steer my kids toward the school with the smallest price tag for the sake of not having loans or make my support contingent on them majoring in a certain area. DH and I consider college to be essential for reasons that go far beyond finding a job when you're done. I want my kids to have those four years to grow and explore and learn for the sake of growth, exploration and learning.

[niccig]

I also agree that the cost of college is out of control. I know that there will be colleges that will never be an option because of the cost. But I also won't steer my kids toward the school with the smallest price tag for the sake of not having loans or make my support contingent on them majoring in a certain area. DH and I consider college to be essential for reasons that go far beyond finding a job when you're done. I want my kids to have those four years to grow and explore and learn for the sake of growth, exploration and learning.

I won't steer DS or insist on a certain major, that's what happened to me my first time around. I do though want to give him opportunities to explore his interests and discuss what he may want to do at college. No one once asked me what I wanted to study. Part of that conversation will be what career he may want to have and what he'll have to do to get there.

I do wonder though if college as 4 yrs for "growth, exploration and learning" will become an attitude for those students whose parents can pay for the 4 years. If undergraduate does cost $200K when DS gets there, I can't imagine take out those loans without thought of the job that will come from it. The author in the OP's article says "college is a privilege", and if you have family to help pay for that privilege, it's much easier than someone doing it on their own.

[crl]

I will say upfront that my education came completely from state schools. But I am not convinced that "name" schools offer a better education, even from a wholistic viewpoint. My dh also went to state schools. His undergraduate degree is from a big University that everyone here would recognize. Mine is from a tiny state school no one here would recognize. My education was significantly better than his, and he would agree.

Dh works with almost exclusively people who have law degrees from Ivy league schools and he is convinced that those schools do not produce better lawyers overall. He has fairly consistently found that the people who are the best thinkers and the hardest workers are the people who worked at some point before or during their education and that those people often come from schools other than the Ivies simply because the Ivies cost too much money for them.

(My work experience was quite different in that few of my colleagues had ivy league degrees.)

I don't know what my children will do for school. I am not at all certain they will go to college. If they choose to pursue a trade, I will support that. If they choose to go to college, I will support that. We hope to be able to fund undergraduate degrees for both kids if that is what they want. And I very much hope that my kids can avoid significant student debt as it can really limit choices down the road.

Catherine

[citymama]

Anyway, that leads me to the issue that DH and I discuss a lot. I think a large part of the problem is that our society has become so commodified. Our market economy has infiltrated so much of the rest of society, that we now take a market approach to just about everything, including education. So rather than valuing education for the sake of enriching the mind, learning to think critically, growing in understanding of the world, etc., we look at it and ask, "What am I getting out of this?" and "Am I getting my money's worth." Which are obviously important considerations when spending large amounts of money for college, but I think it's easy to lose sight of education for education's sake in the process.


:yeahthat: I couldn't agree more!

I can see there is a heated discussion underway, so I won't enter into it at this late stage, but for the OP, keep in mind that the source for the anti-loans screed (linked to in your original post) is a not-very-credible online rag that seems to focus on taking down Obama on every issue possible. If that's your only source, I wouldn't take it too seriously. ;)

[codex57]

I agree with it being formative and rewarding, but you have to be able to get a job at some point. After getting out of law school, I finished my BA in History. I loved it. I want DS to have similar experience and not be just about what job he'll have. But at some point, it will be about that job.

I knew when I graduated that a history degree alone wasn't going to get me a job, unless I decided to pursue a PhD or go into some part of the government sector. I wasn't sure on that, so I did graduate school to be a librarian. This was 17 years ago. If I knew then that I would need a plan beyond my BA in History, then kids today graduating with a history degree have to know they need a plan.

I think we're going to try to balance it with DS. Yes, do something you enjoy and see college as time of growth, but at some point you'll graduate and you need to get a job, so spend time thinking about that as well.

Totally agree with this post.


Thank you for saying this. My four years at an expensive, private Jesuit college made me who I am as a person. The time I spent there was worth every dollar and more, and I wouldn't change a thing, even my major which I assume most people would think was frivolous and indulgent. I didn't (and don't) consider college to be merely a means to employment but an essential experience in its own right, even though it left me with large loans to repay. When the time comes, I will discuss the pros and cons of different college pricepoints with my kids, but I will not steer them toward the cheapest school even if "all they want to be" is a teacher. I will encourage them to look for the best value AND a place that will help shape them as young adults and thinkers. I and they are not playing just for a piece of paper to help them get the best job possible, but for them to have a great, enriching education. If they want to work at CVS when they're done, I still wouldn't consider those four years of college a waste.

I am now in a grad program at a state school (though not the highly regarded state university - I cut corners for the sake of economy, and regret it!), and can tell you first hand that the quality of the education the undergrads (who I took a few prereqs with) are receiving is THE PITS. Sure, they'll graduate with a degree in Ed and will become teachers and will have much less debt than the kid who graduates from Yale and becomes a teacher. But the kid who graduates from Yale will have had a much more sophisticated and rich experience that will influence the rest of her life, and that's not something I think you can quantify as easily as calculating her loan payments.

I'm sure I'll get slammed for having this perspective on higher ed, but honestly, I'm surprised that so many people take such a hard, cost benefit analysis approach to what I think is one of the most pivotal, formative periods of our kids' lives.

ETA: I think people seriously underestimate the how hirable someone who is well spoken, intelligent and has a well-rounded education is. Sure, there are fields that require a specialized degree, but when I was in a position to hire my staff at my last job, a person's major was not something I considered. Their ability to hold their own when dealing with our constituents and their writing skills were MUCH more important. I hired history majors, English majors, and even a woman who studied classical voice with a speciality in liturgical music. I have NEVER had a problem getting a job, and my major was theatre.

That's the thing, with a kid from Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Duke, MIT, whatever, those are elites. I'm sorry, but the kids who go there were elite before college. They already could write well, think critically, highly ambitious, etc. You're talking the cream of the crop here.

Yes, being well spoken, intelligent, and being able to write well and think critically are the most important traits to learn. If you can get that in classical voice, great. Not all private schools will prepare a kid as well as yours apparently did. Also, just cuz you have those skills doesn't necessarily mean you can still get a job or get one that pays well enough to handle the school loans along with daily expenses.

Look at it this way, you went to a pretty good college right? How would your life be without your husband's income? How are your classmates doing? Or better yet, imagine you paid as much as you did to go to a no name private school like so many people do.

Think about the "average" kid. Like the average kid at your high school, and the school he ended up at. And his average family. Are they considering life after college when they first sign up? From what I can see in my state, too many families rely on the schools to figure out the "best" college for their kid. Or, the kid just picks a school and just thinks about where he'll have the most fun. If they do think about jobs, do they really balance out the salary with their living expenses combined with the school loan payments?

A lot of the posters on this board are way high up on the income scale for America. Their schools/life/etc aren't exactly representative of the majority.

That's really my only point (sorry I wrote so much). Just that too many kids (and their families) are too eager to take out some monster school loans without thinking carefully about whether it makes financial sense or not. I mean, they put more thought into whether they can afford a car than they do college, and the college loan can equal a mortgage. They get too caught up into that "college is the time for me to grow" but keep that purely in the abstract and forget that when you do grow into an adult, it comes with adult responsibilities. I'm more "against" a lot of the private schools simply because the public schools still aren't that much for undergrad (grad is a different story). It's one thing to pay a ton for Harvard or Georgetown or even a St. Louis/Creighton/Baylor. It's another to pay for, say, the University of Redlands (yes, I've been there... even stayed in the dorms for a summer).

[JBaxter]

That's really my only point (sorry I wrote so much). Just that too many kids (and their families) are too eager to take out some monster school loans without thinking carefully about whether it makes financial sense or not. I mean, they put more thought into whether they can afford a car than they do college, and the college loan can equal a mortgage. They get too caught up into that "college is the time for me to grow" but keep that purely in the abstract and forget that when you do grow into an adult, it comes with adult responsibilities. I'm more "against" a lot of the private schools simply because the public schools still aren't that much for undergrad (grad is a different story). It's one thing to pay a ton for Harvard or Georgetown or even a St. Louis/Creighton/Baylor. It's another to pay for, say, the University of Redlands (yes, I've been there... even stayed in the dorms for a summer).

Maybe I'm to practical. If you can get a solid education with out putting your self in debt for a mortgage payment for 15 yrs that makes much more sense than struggling. My nephew is going to Worcester Polytech but he got a 40grand a year scholarship. {55grand/year there} Had he not gotten his scholarships he would have gone to Penn State. But paying $55grand/ yr was out of the question unless he was doing an ROTC program ... which he really didnt want to do.

[vonfirmath]

I honestly believe that by the time my kids grow up the apprenticeship system is going to be back in sway more than it is now.

One can educate themselves without paying thousands of dollars for it. Take good advantage of the free education offered, and learn how to find information for yourself. Learn how to learn and you can do anything you want. The only reason for paying the high prices is as an "entrance fee" for a particular profession you want to be part of if that profession requires it. Some professions require exams. Learn the information and take the exam. Other professions require credentials. Get the credentials. More and more professions, IMHO, are going to require apprenticeships. The spiraling costs of a college education are simply unsustainable.

And, IMHO, again, fueled by student loans. You've got people willing to pay as much as they can borrow to get a college education. And the colleges are happy to take as much money as people are willing to pay.

And employers, bit often by new graduates who still can't do the work once they are out, still want experience more than the degree.

[brittone2]

I absolutely value the education I received. I attended a Jesuit university, and feel it was an amazing experience. It was rather expensive, but I received scholarships, and my parents covered most of the cost on a middle class salary. I ended up with a reasonable student loan debt.

However, that same university's costs have nearly doubled since I graduated in 2000/01 (combo bachelor's and master's program in my field).

200,000K for an undergraduate education is simply not doable for most families. I will not say it isn't valuable, and that everything can be boiled down to cost and benefit, but I do think there needs to be open and honest communication with my children about student loan debt. It may limit their choices in ways that they need to be aware of. I never thought I'd become a SAHM, but now I am one. It wouldn't have been possible had I taken on more substantial debt. I think it is critical to talk kids through what taking on debt may mean for their future, and how it may impact their choices-when they can buy a house, what it means if they marry someone who also carries substantial student loan debt, whether they'll be able to scale back to part-time or SAH parenthood if they desire that.

I absolutely understand where people are coming from when they feel the beauty of education for education's sake is a wonderful thing. I would be hesitant to limit my child's choice of major, or limit their choices in terms of what university they choose to attend. I am thankful my parents could afford to send me to a private Jesuit university on a middle class income. However, my friends that borrowed substantial amounts of money definitely have had to make some choices influenced by that amount of debt. But it has been workable for them. With the sharp rise in tuition, an expensive education resulting in substantial debt may be a whole different ballgame for the next generation. It may not be as workable, IMO. Again, my college's costs have nearly doubled in the 11-12 years since I completed my degrees. I feel my experience was worth it, but I'm not sure it would be worth it at twice the cost...or at the very least, there would be significant tradeoffs that need to be addressed with my child.

I have read that due to the rise in costs, and the issues surrounding the economy, many state universities are attracting a higher caliber of student these days. It will be interesting to see if that influences the rigor of education in some of the less rigorous state colleges.

DH was a state college graduate, and it worked out well for him. No debt, and the connections he forged there played a crucial roll in getting his first job in a highly desirable company (eta: professor's spouse worked in that company and she recommended he look at DH's resume.) . At that company DH later made contacts that were critical when he applied to his PhD program...several of his coworkers and supervisors had worked under his advisor, and those letters of recommendation played a substantial roll in his admission to his doctoral program. Forging those connections was key in the way his career played out, and he managed to do it at a state university. That said, I would like my children to have options that include private universities, but it will come with a discussion about debt and the impact it may have on their future.

[lizzywednesday]

...

If there is any "reform" to be done, it's to reform how they inform kids on the debt they're taking on, how it isn't dischargeable even in bankruptcy, and to really think about whether it's "worth" the debt or not. This sort of ties into her argument about how if you incentivise something, it's gonna be used.


...

I grasped that concept from both my "entrance interview" and my "exit interview," though, so I don't quite understand how this is an argument for a lot of people. Mine were done as computer videos - I sat in front of a computer & clicked a bunch of buttons, answered some topical quiz questions and I was done. By my Senior year, I didn't even need to head to the Financial Aid office to do it. It explained the different types of assistance that anyone was eligible for, what happened to student loan debt in certain scenarios (including bankruptcy) and how you could get student loan debt cleared without having to make payments.

The other take-away I had from these sessions was there are all kinds of checks and balances in place for you to defer payment on the money you'd borrowed, either due to financial hardship or continued schooling. All you needed to do was call and ask for the forms.

I even told my brother to call them when he had to withdraw from school during his Junior year. He did and later reported that it was just as painless as I'd told him it would be.

Then again, our loans were government-subsidized Stafford and Ford loans. We were also eligible for need-based grants, like the Pell grant the OP mentioned.

I've benefited from the very-low interest rates, that were/are even lower when you have your payment auto-debited each month, so that I'm paying down more principal than interest on the balance.

OK, it's been 11 years since I started repayment, but, you know what? It's now the account with the longest history on my credit report ... and it's been consistently current and paid-in-full. It's helped me construct my budget around that payment ... and live on less than I earn.

Not having that bill around will be interesting in the long run. (In the short-run, though, I think I'd like to join a gym!)

[karstmama]

all this makes me so thankful i went to such a cheap school. granted, it was 20+ years ago, but it was $400 a semester. i could put it on credit cards and have it paid off by the next time it was due - no loans at all besides that. by grad school, it had doubled to $800 a semester, but i could still pay it myself. thankful thankful thankful.

[brittone2]

I grasped that concept from both my "entrance interview" and my "exit interview," though, so I don't quite understand how this is an argument for a lot of people. Mine were done as computer videos - I sat in front of a computer & clicked a bunch of buttons, answered some topical quiz questions and I was done. By my Senior year, I didn't even need to head to the Financial Aid office to do it. It explained the different types of assistance that anyone was eligible for, what happened to student loan debt in certain scenarios (including bankruptcy) and how you could get student loan debt cleared without having to make payments.

The other take-away I had from these sessions was there are all kinds of checks and balances in place for you to defer payment on the money you'd borrowed, either due to financial hardship or continued schooling. All you needed to do was call and ask for the forms.

I even told my brother to call them when he had to withdraw from school during his Junior year. He did and later reported that it was just as painless as I'd told him it would be.

Then again, our loans were government-subsidized Stafford and Ford loans. We were also eligible for need-based grants, like the Pell grant the OP mentioned.

I've benefited from the very-low interest rates, that were/are even lower when you have your payment auto-debited each month, so that I'm paying down more principal than interest on the balance.

OK, it's been 11 years since I started repayment, but, you know what? It's now the account with the longest history on my credit report ... and it's been consistently current and paid-in-full. It's helped me construct my budget around that payment ... and live on less than I earn.

Not having that bill around will be interesting in the long run. (In the short-run, though, I think I'd like to join a gym!)

IMO, part of the issue is many kids think they are going to graduate and make the big bucks. They are going to start a company, or have the perfect job, get into the right graduate program, etc. and that debt will all be worth it. Except, many times those things don't happen, and that debt starts looking a lot worse than it might have when they were starry-eyed. That's not true of all students, but I do think there's some of that attitude. They are sure they'll be one of the young adults who "makes it," kwim? (eta: I guess my thought is that many students have no idea what the context of their loans will be in their real life. They take on those loans without knowing if they are going to get into grad school, without knowing what their salary will be, who they will marry and what kind of debt that person will carry, etc. And it is difficult to prepare someone for the possibility that those things may not be what they *think* they will be. Those loans may not seem terrible when you are sure you are going to get accepted into the perfect graduate school and make a high starting salary, but many students are taking on those debts when it may be unlikely the "right" sequence of events is going to unfold in their lives.

[lizzywednesday]

IMO, part of the issue is many kids think they are going to graduate and make the big bucks. They are going to start a company, or have the perfect job, get into the right graduate program, etc. and that debt will all be worth it. Except, many times those things don't happen, and that debt starts looking a lot worse than it might have when they were starry-eyed. That's not true of all students, but I do think there's some of that attitude. They are sure they'll be one of the young adults who "makes it," kwim? (eta: I guess my thought is that many students have no idea what the context of their loans will be in their real life. They take on those loans without knowing if they are going to get into grad school, without knowing what their salary will be, who they will marry and what kind of debt that person will carry, etc. And it is difficult to prepare someone for the possibility that those things may not be what they *think* they will be. Those loans may not seem terrible when you are sure you are going to get accepted into the perfect graduate school and make a high starting salary, but many students are taking on those debts when it may be unlikely the "right" sequence of events is going to unfold in their lives.

I guess you're right because I'm seeing that with my step-sisters, who are 15 years younger than me.

The older one has her nose in the air and her head turned "just so" ... and is convinced she's going to make a killing in the real estate business. She attends an out-of-state, private school that her mother is working a 2nd job to pay for and, though she does work hard, doesn't have a concept of the effort it takes to get her where she needs to be.

It's just that, I never really understood where the "big bucks" dreams came from for a lot of people. I was happy to learn my subjects, work my job and get as much experience as I could in the working world so I'd have something to offer employers down the line.

I work in an industry related to my major, but I don't do work related to it. My day-to-day job functions are actually closer to what I did for fun and as a student job - both the work-study job I had as a Freshman and the independent one I obtained as a Sophomore and held until the September following my Senior year.

It's funny - while I was in school, I'd wanted to be a political speechwriter, like my then-idol William Safire. I didn't have a concept of how I was going to get there, just that I wanted to do it. If I'd had a plan, including a financial plan to enable me to take an unpaid summer internship (which I could never afford because I had to pay for my own clothes & books), maybe I'd have made the right connections. Instead, I worked a cash register one summer and a call center for the next three. I developed different skills and made myself a bit more adaptable.

[roobee]

..... The spiraling costs of a college education are simply unsustainable.

And, IMHO, again, fueled by student loans. You've got people willing to pay as much as they can borrow to get a college education. And the colleges are happy to take as much money as people are willing to pay....

Now take the above and replace references to school with references to mortgages and housing....

"the spiraling cost of homes is simply unsustainable. You've got people willing to borrow to get a home and banks willing create loans for as much money as people are willing to pay (really with almost no regard for how the borrower will actually repay the loan)."

It is not a sustainable system. It is propped up on loans backed by the government. Education costs and funding will be the next crisis and it will come to a head a few years after the housing crisis has ended... I'm guessing right around the time DD graduates from HS.

I don't know... I never went to college so I have no student loans and I can't speak to if a college education is "worth" it from the cost/loan aspect. I do know that all I've really had is just a job and I'm pretty much stalled out of being able to have a career without some formal education to back myself up. But it doesn't seem okay for kids to graduate with 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars worth of loans. There will be a breakdown of the current system.

[niccig]

IMO, part of the issue is many kids think they are going to graduate and make the big bucks. They are going to start a company, or have the perfect job, get into the right graduate program, etc. and that debt will all be worth it. Except, many times those things don't happen, and that debt starts looking a lot worse than it might have when they were starry-eyed. That's not true of all students, but I do think there's some of that attitude. T

I agree with this. It's what I've seen with some students. I've also heard similar things from friends.

A friend of ours was interviewing babysitters. One sitter told her that she did an unpaid internship in a company in the field she wants to work in and they offered her a job, but it wasn't the actual job she wanted, so she turned it down. And now she's interviewing for babysitter jobs instead. My friend said she looked at this young woman and thought "Are you an idiot? How about working your way up from this job to the one you want?" She didn't hire her.

DH says the same about younger people they've hired at work. They're hired as a producer's assistant and quit 6 months later when they haven't been promoted to producer. He said they have unrealistic expectations of what they can do and how long it will take them to acquire the skills to do the job they want to do. They want to come in at the top. He thinks its because they've seen the success story of Mark Zuckerbergs etc that came out of college and made millions running their own company. They want that.

[vonfirmath]

Now take the above and replace references to school with references to mortgages and housing....

And looked what happened to the housing market...

[swissair81]

I agree with this. It's what I've seen with some students. I've also heard similar things from friends.

A friend of ours was interviewing babysitters. One sitter told her that she did an unpaid internship in a company in the field she wants to work in and they offered her a job, but it wasn't the actual job she wanted, so she turned it down. And now she's interviewing for babysitter jobs instead. My friend said she looked at this young woman and thought "Are you an idiot? How about working your way up from this job to the one you want?" She didn't hire her.

DH says the same about younger people they've hired at work. They're hired as a producer's assistant and quit 6 months later when they haven't been promoted to producer. He said they have unrealistic expectations of what they can do and how long it will take them to acquire the skills to do the job they want to do. They want to come in at the top. He thinks its because they've seen the success story of Mark Zuckerbergs etc that came out of college and made millions running their own company. They want that.

There's a Catch 22 when applying for a job that's lower than your qualifications. I knew I would have trouble getting a job out of nursing school because I don't work on Saturday (for religious reasons), so I applied for a nursing assistant job while still in school, so I would already be an employee. They were all suspicious as to why I wanted a lower level job than I was qualified for. In the end, I got a higher level job with a manager who agreed to take me on a contingent basis (and also ended up personally speaking to managers about me when I graduated), but it wasn't as easy to get a job that I was overqualified for as one might think. Even now, I wouldn't get a nursing assistant job if I applied for one- even if that was the only thing available- because RNs just don't do that. It's irritating but still true.

[niccig]

There's a Catch 22 when applying for a job that's lower than your qualifications. I knew I would have trouble getting a job out of nursing school because I don't work on Saturday (for religious reasons), so I applied for a nursing assistant job while still in school, so I would already be an employee. They were all suspicious as to why I wanted a lower level job than I was qualified for.

That wasn't this situation. It was an entry level job in the company as an assistant. The kind of job you're qualified to do when you first get out of college. She wanted the job of her supervisor, the one you get when you have a couple of years experience.

DH has seen a revolving door of producer's assistants, who after 6 months want to be overseeing multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. They get upset when they don't get this work and either leave for other jobs in the industry or leave the field all together.