It's not that I'm not happy with the school/degree. It's 100% that there's no goddamned excuse for the rate at which the cost to attend college is increasing. Your "accept it and move on" bit of wisdom is exactly what's exacerbating this bubble. It doesn't drive accountability, and it doesn't drive to the root of the problem, and your "well I made it through, **** the other guys" attitude sure as hell isn't fixing the systemic issues present in the US university system today.
My suggestion is not to accept it and move on for future students.
If everyone did a brief bit of research before going to school, many of them wouldn't have gone to school. The rates keep increasing because more and more people are now attending colleges. They have to get larger facilities to hold everyone. More staff. Less students and the price will go down.
You think it's this huge problem. I think college is a business. They're going to keep increasing prices if they can--and why shouldn't they? Everyone has bought in that higher education is vastly important for every path taken.
But if someone doesn't do any research... their fault. They paid for the education, they got the education. Exactly what they paid for. Where was the guarantee of a job?
Do I think prices for college sucked when I was there? Yeah. And they are getting worse. But I agreed to the price when I signed up. It was worth it to me. It's still worth it. Anyone who doesn't agree with the price doesn't have to attend the school.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 04-01-2014).]
What would those systemic issues be ? I will argue the main one, with respect to cost, is the easy availability of student loans.
Still the same old issue... states have cut back on funding, so tuition goes up.
States need to take control of state universities and look at tuition issues and costs. I am not saying they need to manage day-to-day, but question why places like U of M are spending so much on expansion and luxury items.... ($60M for dorm upgrades... come on).
http://www.annarbor.com/new...of-south-quadrangle/ _______________________ East Quadrangle Renovation: Currently in the planning stages with a budget of $119 million. Lawyers Club: Currently in the planning stages with a budget of $39 million. Alice C. Lloyd Hall: Currently under construction with a budget of $56 million. Couzens Hall: Reopened in 2011 after $49 million renovation. North Quad: Opened in 2010 after $75 million construction project. Stockwell Hall: Reopened in 2009 after a 39.6 million renovation. Hill Dining Center: Reopened in 2008 after 21 million renovation. Mosher Jordan Hall: Reopened in 2008 after 44.1 million renovation.
Aside from the Lawyer’s Club renovation, which is being paid for in part by a large donation and in part by the law school, the majority of residence hall renovations are funded by University Housing, which derives its funding from student room and board fees.
...
“The aesthetics is very important,” said Coleman of the new dorms. “It’s crucial…. The aesthetics of a place really adds to the whole experience.”
__________________________________
BTW, U of M is my alma mater and I think their recent spending is just outlandish and unnecessary.
A lot of these six-figure+ college debts come from private univsersities. When I went to college, I would have loved to go to Duke's Pratt School of Engineering. I couldn't afford it. So, I went to a public university - NC State. NCSU's Shool of Engineering is well regarded, but not as prestigious as Duke's. I'm sure a degree from Duke would open more doors than one from NC State, but it wasn't an option and even if the loans were available, I wouldn't have gone into debt more than the cost of a house to get the degree.
The estimated 4 year cost to attend Duke Univsersity at current rates: $229,624 By comparison, the estimated 4 year in-state cost at NCSU: $68,808 (out of state: $121,468)
That includes all tuition, fees, books, supplies, as well as room and board. That's a lot of money, but if you're borrowing over $200k to go to a private school, IMO you're an idiot. If you must borrow, borrow the $70k to get a degree from a state college and if you want to get an advanced degree beyond that, pay for it out of your post-grad earnings. Don't whine that you have $200k in debt when you were all too happy to take and spend $200k of someone else's money.
"Follow-up comments compared the rising cost of academic credit at MSU to changes in the federal minimum wage. In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.
The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester."
And how many average 18 year old kids do that? When they are presented with 'fact sheet' from the chosen college you believe them. Its not until later in life that you become cynical and figure out that everyone is out to screw you.
Not to mention those schools that deliberately provide false numbers so any ROI calculations are totally unrealistic, OR the simple fact that ANY long-term calculation like that is useless as tits on a boar, simply because of the number of outside factors (economy, world events, chance circumstance, advancing technology ect) render them an exercise in stupidity and unrealistic expectations.
I know all about it, I was once in my 20's with an education and thought I knew it all too.
no kidding. why do you think "they" never wanted the GI Bill which helped pay for college?
deny access up at all costs. dont let that riff-raff in. keep the rich rich. keep the poor on the ladder - but never let them up.
whats the point of "Elite" when anyone can do it?
sorry bucky - any real answer would be communism. no one is gonna give it for free. unless we all chip in. and we already see that is a no go. so - suck it - I got mine.
"Follow-up comments compared the rising cost of academic credit at MSU to changes in the federal minimum wage. In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.
The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester."
Cheap credit has created a tuition bubble the same as the housing bubble. When the cost of money goes down, the cost of related goods and services goes up. In the case of tuition, more cheap loans meant more demand, yet the "supply" stayed the same. More people competing for existing spaces, plus cheaper financing of those costs all combined to drive tuition prices up faster than inflation. That's the definition of a price bubble. The solution to a bubble isn't more cheap money or forgiving previous loans. That will make it worse. As long as there's more people wanting to go to college than there are seats available, prices will continue to go up faster than inflation.
You can still work your way through college. It's more difficult than in the past and may require going to school part time instead of full time, but it is accessible.
Throwing some information out there about my college experience. I graduated from a community college in Business Mgmt. and from a 4 year college in Project Management. I got picked up for a job in Project Management about 6 months before I graduated. Been with this company for over 3 years now.
Right now, if nothing good/bad changes, I will have my loans paid off in 9 years. Right now they sit at 56k and I've been paying on them for about 8 months. This includes the parent plus loans my parents took out, I pay 100% of those as well.
I'm still able to save each month and have approx. $600-$1700 extra each month for fun stuff. Not a lot but I certainly can have fun. (This also includes my weekend job).
Now the benefit of all of this? My PM job right now requires me only to work 25-30 hours a week. It will eventually increase, but being in my 20s right now, I put a lot more weight into my free time than working. I have 3 cars that I can enjoy, plenty of range time, and whatever else I want to do.
Point of all of this is I've found a good balance of financial happiness and emotional happiness and I expect them to increase together so I can keep my sanity
It's not that I'm not happy with the school/degree. It's 100% that there's no goddamned excuse for the rate at which the cost to attend college is increasing. Your "accept it and move on" bit of wisdom is exactly what's exacerbating this bubble. It doesn't drive accountability, and it doesn't drive to the root of the problem, and your "well I made it through, **** the other guys" attitude sure as hell isn't fixing the systemic issues present in the US university system today.
I wouldn't take these ROI charts to heart.
Looking at the college I recently graduated from, my debt incurred was less than 1/2 of that chart.
Cheap credit has created a tuition bubble the same as the housing bubble.
Cheap credit? Nah, not the reason.... the reason for taking out loans is because tuition costs have increased to a rate that takes it out of the reach of "affordable".
Sure, you can go to school for 8-10 years..... but why can't places like U of M and MSU focus on education instead of catering to the wealthy? Isn't that what a state school should do? (I could care less what private schools do) There are plenty of other state colleges/univ that have reasonable budgets and take their education seriously and maybe Michigan (in this example) should cut public funding to MSU and U of M. They can just take all that money from athletics and alumni and use it to build those luxury dorms
Michigan has lost focus on education, and it shows.
Then people should go there instead of complaining about prices at MSU and U of M. As you pointed out, there are reasonable options.
Tuition prices have gone up everywhere (in MI, because of the lack of state funding), as I have shown in that graph TWICE. Prices are still high enough that people need loans, not $100K, but maybe $40K or less.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 04-01-2014).]
Originally posted by cliffw: What would those systemic issues be ? I will argue the main one, with respect to cost, is the easy availability of student loans.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Still the same old issue... states have cut back on funding, so tuition goes up.
Really ? Says who ? What was the percentage of funding to operating costs ... then and now ? Why should people/taxpayers help fund something that they will never use ? Gee. That would be like my health insurance costs paying for deadbeats who take advantage of emergency room care.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: States need to take control of state universities and look at tuition issues and costs. I am not saying they need to manage day-to-day, but question why places like U of M are spending so much on expansion and luxury items.... ($60M for dorm upgrades... come on).
Your linked article does say that the dorms were built between 1940 and 1960 and have never had any major renovations. Heh, the majority of the renovations according to the article are going to community space. To rival the new luxury student high-rises popping up around Ann Arbor. Those would be private colleges. Your U of M needs/depends on monies other than the gooberment teet.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: BTW, you do have control over where you taxpayer dollars go. The people making the choices of funding are ELECTED. Now, maybe you don't agree with the elected officials, but the majority of voters do.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: As for where the money goes.... yes, you do control it through the election process. Obama got into office TWICE....
"Follow-up comments compared the rising cost of academic credit at MSU to changes in the federal minimum wage. In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.
So ... what should the minimum wage be now to keep up ? Did you do the math ?
Why should people/taxpayers help fund something that they will never use ?
Oh, I am sure you will discount this, but again, you are wrong....
"We estimate the economic impact of the University of Michigan on the state of Michigan,including the spin-off effects of its operational activities. The contribution of U-M ismeasured in terms of both the economic activity associated with its presence, and the activity that would be lost to Michigan if U-M were no longer present. We estimate that in the former case, U-M’s contribution to the state economy is 66,000 jobs, $3.5 billion in personal income, and $271 million in state tax revenue. In the latter case, the impact is 41,000 jobs, $2.3 billion in personal income, and $175.5 million in state tax revenue, all of which would be entirely lost from the state economy absent U-M. Thus, U-M returns to the State most of the public funds invested in its operation. Not only is the overall health of the state important to the health of U-M, but the health of U-M is also important to the overall health of the state. " http://irlee.umich.edu/clmr.../Impact-UMonMich.pdf
"Michigan's three top public universities don't simply educate tens of thousands of students, they also spread billions of dollars throughout the state's economy each year." "For every dollar the state invested in the three URC universities, it saw $17 in economic benefits, according to the report." - http://www.annarbor.com/new...higan-pictured-here/
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Your linked article does say that the dorms were built between 1940 and 1960 and have never had any major renovations. Heh, the majority of the renovations according to the article are going to community space. To rival the new luxury student high-rises popping up around Ann Arbor. Those would be private colleges. Your U of M needs/depends on monies other than the gooberment teet.
I have seen these buildings first hand, they were not run-down, out-of-date (the ones which remained open). What does it matter where the money is going, within the dorm?
What are you talking about "private colleges"? Those high-rise apartments are for U of M students who live "off-campus". Cliff, it is like don't even know what you are talking about here...
Yes, U of M can go private, that would be fine with me.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: So ... what should the minimum wage be now to keep up ? Did you do the math ?
Deflection... hmmm, can't argue the facts, so change the subject? Sigh...
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Perhaps you should quit your biatching.
Again, real classy, but I have come to expect this from you. I am not really sure why you even live in the US. You hate everything about it, yet you benefit from most of it. eh... hypocrite.
So ... what should the minimum wage be now to keep up ? Did you do the math ?
Do you think the minimum wage should be higher, or tuition lower? The math in the article was bullshit anyway, as a person working for Michigan's $7.40/hr minimum wage does not take home 100% of that money.
Originally posted by cliffw: ...Why should people/taxpayers help fund something that they will never use ? Gee. That would be like my health insurance costs paying for deadbeats who take advantage of emergency room care.
I do the very same thing. I have zero children, but I still pay millages for the schools and the libraries. In fact, I bet my tax dollars have helped to pave roads I'll never even drive down.
My suggestion is not to accept it and move on for future students.
If everyone did a brief bit of research before going to school, many of them wouldn't have gone to school. The rates keep increasing because more and more people are now attending colleges. They have to get larger facilities to hold everyone. More staff. Less students and the price will go down.
How does this make sense? Economies of scale ignored, would you expect that if the costs should be higher for 40 students taught by 2 professors than 20 students taught by 1 professor?
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: You think it's this huge problem. I think college is a business. They're going to keep increasing prices if they can--and why shouldn't they? Everyone has bought in that higher education is vastly important for every path taken.
I do think it's a huge problem. You see a college as a business. I see a taxpayer funded, state institution of higher learning as a non-profit entity.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: But if someone doesn't do any research... their fault. They paid for the education, they got the education. Exactly what they paid for. Where was the guarantee of a job?
Who said anything about a guaranteed job? My point is solely that the cost of a 4 year degree is much higher than it was in the past, relative to the minimum wage, a gallon of milk, the price of a car, the price of a house, inflation- whatever you choose to measure it against, the costs are much higher, and I'm not seeing a justification for it. There's no reason that in 1974 it cost as much as a car to get (an Engineering degree, for argument's sake), but in 2014 it costs as much as a house to get an Engineering degree. The professors aren't being compensated that much more, homework assignments don't cost more money, and exams are still exams- WHERE IS THE BALANCE OF THE INCREASE GOING?
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: Do I think prices for college sucked when I was there? Yeah. And they are getting worse. But I agreed to the price when I signed up. It was worth it to me. It's still worth it. Anyone who doesn't agree with the price doesn't have to attend the school.
That's great that you signed up... but.... what are you doing to fix it for the future?
Do you think if we have a 'laissez faire' attitude to toward the education of the American workforce it will result in a long-term increase or decrease in international competitiveness.
I hope you realize that these issues are connected. If we raise a generation of ignorants, they will become janitors for those who do wield the smarts- pretty soon we'll be assembling iPhones and plastic knickknacks for the Chinese.
Ive ALWAYS said college was a waste of money for the vast majority of students. Some careers do require a lot of study like law and medicine. My argument has always been most fields people work in real world would learn more on the job and save that huge amount of money they spent. Jobs like I know of, like auto body and paint, the first thing you learn after graduating from the tech school, is to forget everything you learned in that 2-3 years of wasted time. Nothing in a real body/paint shop is done the ways its taught in schools. They would all go broke. The only thing you get out of it, IF you got to do much painting, is a lot of first hand experience spraying. I learned how to paint in a working shop by first spraying primer, till I was finally told to try one. Ive painted nearly every single car Ive owned since my first one. From when I started doing them for money, ive painted literally thousands now.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 04-01-2014).]
How does this make sense? Economies of scale ignored, would you expect that if the costs should be higher for 40 students taught by 2 professors than 20 students taught by 1 professor?
Who said anything about a guaranteed job? My point is solely that the cost of a 4 year degree is much higher than it was in the past, relative to the minimum wage, a gallon of milk, the price of a car, the price of a house, inflation- whatever you choose to measure it against, the costs are much higher, and I'm not seeing a justification for it. There's no reason that in 1974 it cost as much as a car to get (an Engineering degree, for argument's sake), but in 2014 it costs as much as a house to get an Engineering degree. The professors aren't being compensated that much more, homework assignments don't cost more money, and exams are still exams- WHERE IS THE BALANCE OF THE INCREASE GOING?
That's great that you signed up... but.... what are you doing to fix it for the future?
Do you think if we have a 'laissez faire' attitude to toward the education of the American workforce it will result in a long-term increase or decrease in international competitiveness.
I hope you realize that these issues are connected. If we raise a generation of ignorants, they will become janitors for those who do wield the smarts- pretty soon we'll be assembling iPhones and plastic knickknacks for the Chinese.
Dorm rooms cost money to build. Facilities that can't hold enough students cost money to build. More lunch rooms cost money to build. It all costs money. I'm not saying that colleges should keep expanding like they are, but I'd sure as hell increase my rate to the highest that a student was willing to pay.
Degrees don't cost a house unless the student chose an extremely expensive school. The return still far exceeds the cost... unless you choose a bad school/degree. So it's still worth it to go for many people.
What am I doing to "fix" it? I don't see much of a problem. But I did vote as a student whenever I could to not build the new things, and to not fund organizations more than they were. I voted to decrease virtually all funding that wasn't going straight to education. I was usually outvoted by other paying students though.
I don't want to see rising costs. But I definitely don't want to see government mandated prices for education. If we adopted a completely private education system, I think we'd be far more competitive as a whole. The most ambitious kids will do everything in their power to be successful, and instead of being held back to lower standards like now, they will have the means to do so. Meanwhile, people who don't have what it takes, probably would have never wasted the time and money in extra schooling in the first place and settled with what they were capable of.
I'll admit, it wouldn't be that perfect. Lots of people would fall through lots of cracks, especially in the beginning. But I think we'd be far more competitive overall. And you disagree, which is totally fine.
Tuition prices have gone up everywhere (in MI, because of the lack of state funding), as I have shown in that graph TWICE. Prices are still high enough that people need loans, not $100K, but maybe $40K or less.
Yeah, and? I took out student loans when in college. I paid them back. So now we're talking the price of a new car for a college education - something many college grads can afford to pay off in 5 years.
It's not free. It never has been. Yes, it costs more now.
The important question: WHY does it cost more now?
Reduced gov't funding? "Easy money" from private lenders? Schools spending money on luxury extras like world-class recreation facilities? Lack of oversight? All of the above?
I have a real problem with anybody who says "don't question it; just pay it" If we don't figure out why other nations send their students for free (or nearly free) while we meanwhile make education less obtainable, we will become a nation of burger-flippers.
The important question: WHY does it cost more now?
Reduced gov't funding? "Easy money" from private lenders? Schools spending money on luxury extras like world-class recreation facilities? Lack of oversight? All of the above?
I have a real problem with anybody who says "don't question it; just pay it" If we don't figure out why other nations send their students for free (or nearly free) while we meanwhile make education less obtainable, we will become a nation of burger-flippers.
If it's a state sponsored school, those are valid questions. If it's a private school, they spend their money how they see fit and charge what they want. Like any business, you can choose to do business with them or not. The lion's share of those huge student loan debts are from attending expensive private colleges, not public sponsored state colleges. As I showed above, public university costs FAR less even at today's prices.
Keep in mind many of the luxuries often talked about (sports arenas, luxury dorms for athletes, etc.) are paid for by Alumni clubs, not tax dollars. Those alumni clubs raise private donations to buy many of those perks. Could they spend them on academics or offset tuition? Yes. Should they be forced to? No. The only oversight should be with regard to academic operations and use of taxpayer dollars.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 04-01-2014).]
Yeah, and? I took out student loans when in college. I paid them back. So now we're talking the price of a new car for a college education - something many college grads can afford to pay off in 5 years.
It's not free. It never has been. Yes, it costs more now.
I never said it was free. College tuition used to be REASONABLE and people didn't need to take out large loans to afford the opportunity to better their education. They could work the summer and have their money for college. I can tell you that out of college, I didn't buy a new car, and I couldn't even afford to think like that. So to say, that recent graduates can afford such a loan is unreasonable and only keeps them in debt longer. But I guess that is the point, you got your education and if the price goes up, so what.... That seems to be the opinion around here lately, people don't realize (or chose to ignore) how much they were helped by various programs (including government ones), and they think they did it on their own. If you look at the graph I posted, here in MI, the State used to cover a large percentage of the tuition (78% in the 60s), which means education was cheaper because of taxpayer funds. If you went to a state school, the same thing is most likely true for you.
I don't want to see rising costs. But I definitely don't want to see government mandated prices for education. If we adopted a completely private education system, I think we'd be far more competitive as a whole. The most ambitious kids will do everything in their power to be successful, and instead of being held back to lower standards like now, they will have the means to do so. Meanwhile, people who don't have what it takes, probably would have never wasted the time and money in extra schooling in the first place and settled with what they were capable of.
I'll admit, it wouldn't be that perfect. Lots of people would fall through lots of cracks, especially in the beginning. But I think we'd be far more competitive overall. And you disagree, which is totally fine.
At least we have elected officials who disagree with this.
The important question: WHY does it cost more now?
Schools spending money on luxury extras like world-class recreation facilities
DING DING..........winner.
Ohio State spends enough on sports to fund a small country. Whether theyre supposed to or not, they also give athletes a LOT of HUGE PERKS. I know that for a fact first hand. Of course they hide it well enough to get away with it.
I never said it was free. College tuition used to be REASONABLE and people didn't need to take out large loans to afford the opportunity to better their education. They could work the summer and have their money for college. I can tell you that out of college, I didn't buy a new car, and I couldn't even afford to think like that. So to say, that recent graduates can afford such a loan is unreasonable and only keeps them in debt longer. But I guess that is the point, you got your education and if the price goes up, so what.... That seems to be the opinion around here lately, people don't realize (or chose to ignore) how much they were helped by various programs (including government ones), and they think they did it on their own. If you look at the graph I posted, here in MI, the State used to cover a large percentage of the tuition (78% in the 60s), which means education was cheaper because of taxpayer funds. If you went to a state school, the same thing is most likely true for you.
Your bitterness is clouding your judgement. I said "many" graduates buy a new car after graduation. Not all. Yes, it keeps them in debt longer - and they CHOOSE to do that because they WANT to. I think it's a bad decision, but that is their decision to make and their responsibility to fulfill.
The point you seem to be missing is how many people are taking out six figure debt for college when they don't have to. The CHOOSE to go to the more expensive school, rather than take out less debt and go to a less expensive school. Higher education is harder to afford today, but it's not as far out of reach as you and others are making it out to be. Because it's easy to get these loans, they choose the easy way to finance the expensive college they want. Then they complain when they have to pay it back.
It's easy for you to get angry and write off my viewpoint as only caring about myself. It's easy, but it's also inaccurate.
Your bitterness is clouding your judgement. I said "many" graduates buy a new car after graduation. Not all. Yes, it keeps them in debt longer - and they CHOOSE to do that because they WANT to. I think it's a bad decision, but that is their decision to make and their responsibility to fulfill.
The point you seem to be missing is how many people are taking out six figure debt for college when they don't have to. The CHOOSE to go to the more expensive school, rather than take out less debt and go to a less expensive school. Higher education is harder to afford today, but it's not as far out of reach as you and others are making it out to be. Because it's easy to get these loans, they choose the easy way to finance the expensive college they want. Then they complain when they have to pay it back.
It's easy for you to get angry and write off my viewpoint as only caring about myself. It's easy, but it's also inaccurate.
I am not bitter, I am just looking at the numbers. I am telling you that college costs have gone up and state's like MI have cut funding, causing this.
Let me give you an example.... the average cost for the lowest priced state univ. in MI is about $21K a year (on campus). It would take 71 (40 hr) weeks to pay for that (excluding income taxes on the $7.40/hr wage). So, who is working full time and going to school full time? Loans are used to cover what people can't afford. So, lets say they work 33 40-hour weeks (8 months) to raise $10K. That leaves them with $11K in loans... per year. $44K for four years. Now, let me remind you, this is based on the lowest priced public univ. in the state. Do they have to live on campus? Nope, but they still have to eat, pay for utilities, vehicle/gas (if they live off campus), etc. So the off-campus savings will not as much, but there are similar costs. Oh, don't forget the interest rate on that $44K.... it is about 5% or higher, so add on another $2200.
Is your solution to not go to school, then? If that is the case, that makes school available to the wealthy only, and that should not be the goal of a public university. Could they take more time to complete their degree? Sure, how long... 10 years? Sure, but that is not practical, or desirable from the person's standpoint or the univ's. It probably isn't even cost effective, as they are going to try and make ends meet for 10 years (no car payment, no additional expenses, etc).
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 04-02-2014).]
I am telling you that college costs have gone up and state's like MI have cut funding, causing this.
I haven't argued that. Have you ever wondered why there wasn't a big public concern over tuition costs until paying back the loans became a concern? Nobody minded the cost when taking out the loan - only when the time comes to pay it back.
Maybe the solution is to only offer low interest student loans for public universities. If you have to borrow money to go to an Ivy League school, you can't afford it. That would cut down on student debt drastically by forcing those who can't afford a six figure college debt to go to a less expensive college.
A $40k student loan at 4% over 10 years would be $404/mo. ($243/mo over 20 years) By comparison, those $200k degrees would cost almost $2000/mo to pay back in 10 years.
When you consider the average college graduate makes $17k a year more than a high school graduate, many can easily afford those payments and still be far ahead in earnings compared to not going to college.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
Oh, don't forget the interest rate on that $44K.... it is about 5% or higher, so add on another $2200.
The current rate for Federal Stafford loans is 3.86%.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
Is your solution to not go to school, then?
If you can legitimately ask that, you haven't paid attention to anything I've posted.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 04-02-2014).]
Follow-up comments compared the rising cost of academic credit at MSU to changes in the federal minimum wage. In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.
The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester.
Have you ever wondered why there wasn't a big public concern over tuition costs until paying back the loans became a concern? Nobody minded the cost when taking out the loan - only when the time comes to pay it back.
Maybe the solution is to only offer low interest student loans for public universities. If you have to borrow money to go to an Ivy League school, you can't afford it. That would cut down on student debt drastically by forcing those who can't afford a six figure college debt to go to a less expensive college.
People have been complaining about the cost of education (at least here in MI) long before the "loan bubble". The State set tuition increase caps... which still didn't help, as it only hurt the smaller schools and forced them to cut programs and the like (on top of previous cut-backs).
I am all for public backed loans going to public universities. If banks want to loan money to students of private universities, then they can take the gamble. Heck, some private universities could even becoming the lending institution, as they have Billions of dollars in funds
The current rate for Federal Stafford loans is 3.86%.
Mine is 6.8%.
I think banks should do a cost analysis of loans and give better rates to schools and degrees that have a higher chance of future financial success, and to students who show they can make it through without too much of a problem. High rates should go to high risk students, whether they go into a field that doesn't allow for much financial success or if they're just not academically proven to be able to make it.
But the government wants it all to be highly regulated so that won't happen.
I think banks should do a cost analysis of loans and give better rates to schools and degrees that have a higher chance of future financial success, and to students who show they can make it through without too much of a problem. High rates should go to high risk students, whether they go into a field that doesn't allow for much financial success or if they're just not academically proven to be able to make it.
But the government wants it all to be highly regulated so that won't happen.
A degree for a job that doesnt pay much shouldnt cost as much in the 1st place either. The job market should drive school prices. It doesnt seem to work out that way alot fo the time.
I think banks should do a cost analysis of loans and give better rates to schools and degrees that have a higher chance of future financial success, and to students who show they can make it through without too much of a problem. High rates should go to high risk students, whether they go into a field that doesn't allow for much financial success or if they're just not academically proven to be able to make it.
But the government wants it all to be highly regulated so that won't happen.
Thanks for the info! I was quoting one source I looked up online.
