While I’m happy for the students and appreciate the “pay it forward” message, I am just shocked that the collective debt for 396 students is $40 million. That’s $100k per student on average, just for a bachelor’s degree. How could this be sustainable?
This is a great gesture, but I wonder if it will just encourage bad/gouging behavior by colleges.
Why the hell does education need to be that expensive? Maybe for a doctor, sure - but for teachers who are going to come out making 30k - it seems that education prices should be tied to future earning potential somehow.
> Maybe for a doctor, sure - but for teachers who are going to come out making 30k - it seems that education prices should be tied to future earning potential somehow.
The real problem is that people are completely price insensitive when it comes to their education. I would prefer us to move to an equity model, personally. One where education is free, but the university takes a small cut of your future earnings. This way everyone's incentives are properly aligned.
And for efficiencies sake we could centralise the collection of that cut. We could call it "taxes" (snark aside, this is why public education works. If you need to have a free market system, then have well regulated collection agencies compete for the attention of universities who's only allowed source of funding will be this cut, with some additional bonus paid out by the state for social mobility. One measure of this could be the increase in salary vs expected salary based on socioeconomic class)
We had this system in Sweden for a long time, my parents were able to study with these terms in the 90s. Basically, you could choose between multiple payment plans, one of them being that the government takes 4% of your income (after taxes) no matter the size. Once you're 65, your debt is written off no matter how much is left.
The system was changed by the more fiscally conservative government of the 00s into the terms I got, which is a payment plan over 25 years. If you can't pay you can apply for an exemption, but the interest rate is still compounding during the exemption. The loan has to be repaid before you're 60.
The reasons given for the change were many, but the most cited are that income earned overseas (very common, this being the EU and all) is very hard to keep track of and that this system incentivizes us into choosing a degree resulting in a high paying job.
(I should ad that we do not pay tuition for universities in Sweden, the student loans are almost exclusively used for living expenses so that you can study full time and some of it is used for textbooks and other supplies)
> The real problem is that people are completely price insensitive when it comes to their education.
While some people are, there are plenty of people who are not insensitive. I went to a public state school and pretty much everyone i knew there chose that school because it was way cheaper than going out of state/private and some of them even got scholarships.
I wonder what an equity system would end up doing to the way compensation works. I would imagine “perk” and other non-salary forms of compensation would increase, and other forms of Hollywood Accounting style tricks would be common. Maybe not though, since the IRS already has legal frameworks in place to ensure income is able to be accounted for.
Surely, just cancelling debt will always increase cost of service (I cannot come up with a historical example where this is not the case, but happy to be corrected).
However, this gesture is not a policy, and just a really nice gift and expression of altruism.
Also... since you mentioned it, I cannot believe how little teachers are making, including their pension guarantees (in US and many other countries) -- for the effort that many of them put in -- this is just a disgrace.
I wish, there would be a way for exchange safety/tenure guarantees for significant pay increase (eg at least double). And let the teachers make that choice.
Perhaps things changed in the 20 years since I graduated, but based on the college aid packages offered to me, it was less expensive for me to go to MIT than it was to go to UMass Amherst.
As a Umass Amherst alum, I knew a couple of people there who got into MIT, and didn't go due to the cost. There were lots of students at UMass, who were foregoing private schools. Those tuitions seem like a bargin today.
You probably got a good package. That was about 25 years ago, when Tufts was the first college to break to 20k/year barrier.
As they mention, financial aid is the big factor. I suspect that the majority of people turning down these schools would not be eligible for significant financial aid awards.
Note, college loans don't only cover tuition (which is not the sole cost of college). They are also needed for room and board. The above links explicitly call that out.
As another poster said. They are only needed if you don’t work while in college or at least go to a two year college that lets you stay at home and then transfer.
Not true. Working while in college is quite common. People still need to take out loans on top because 1)pay sucks for unskilled young workers 2) if you’re devoting yourself to school you probably aren’t working 40 hours a week so you can’t cover all of room and board.
I graduated fifteen years ago, worked at all times in college and every break, lived cheap and still occasionally needed to take out loans for living expenses. I just paid the last one off two years ago.
Hey, I'm just citing the estimates from the financial help sections of Universities. 80k-100k is an accurate description of what UC Berkeley estimates for a 4 year degree.
It isn't a zero-sum thing, and different people go to university for different reasons.
For me, minimising the debt at the far end was important, so I took a heavy course load and worked half time on average. Work experience from that period (IT for the university) was actually quite valuable in the jobs (mainly engineering) I've had in the decade since. Maybe one employer has ever even looked at my school paperwork; I really don't understand the idea of doing nothing but university with that time.
I worked twenty hours a week in what ended up being my career. I gained valuable work experience that landed me a job immediately when I graduated. I could have done better in school if I’d had the luxury to devote myself fully, but the work experience was invaluable.
And four year public colleges in GA offer 2+2 programs where you can go to a 2 year college even cheaper and then transfer.
Honestly, most students don’t go to Morehouse because it’s an outstanding college, they go to be a “Morehouse man” and the historical significance as an HBCU - And before I start getting replies about not understanding “the Black Experience”, I am Black, went to a much less prestigious (and cheaper) HBCU, spent a summer on Clark’s campus (part of the Atlanta University Center along with Morehouse) at a summer program, and came out with no student loan debt, and making just as much in 3 years as people coming from more prestigious schools.
How much is rent, utilities, and books on top of 10k/year tuition? Can students work to pay these other costs of living without sacrificing their studies? I have doubts.
Maybe at a public school the debt amounts are some percentage less. But, I argue, not that much less.
Rent and food plan (generally required) is usually between 5-10k per year, maybe more now. Add in books, travel, and so many other expenses, and we are edging up to the 100k mark
College debt doesn’t just come from tuition, if you want to make a valid argument representing students in the last 10 years, you need to take into account cost-of-living factors as well.
When you do, $25k isn’t hard to hit at all a year. Take any UC school (average in-state ~$15k) and add just rent (~$800/month if you’re lucky) and you’ll get there. Now factor in food, travel (over breaks), club fees, etc and you’ll see why debt is so high, on average, despite students working part time jobs.
Sure, but all the UCs offer quite a bit of financial aid too. Taking everything into account (tuition, room, board, and other expenses minus grants and scholarships), the net price of UC Berkeley is around $18k on average and 10k for low income students. Of the 26% of undergraduates who take out loans each year, the average amount was less than $6,000. The other UCs are even less. So the idea that taking out $25k/yr in loans at a UC is in any way typical is not consistent with reality as far as I can tell.
Obviously, anecdotes aren't data, but "go to a CC for two years and transfer" is the path that a lot of people I know tried to take, and almost all of them ended up dropping out. A few joined the military, but almost all of the rest are just working standard service jobs, though they originally had much higher aspirations.
I know some of that might be attributed to them just being lazy or not being motivated, but it has been, in my experience, such a common story that I feel that there's a problem with providing kids with a simple life plan of "get two years at the local community college and transfer out".
I went to community college before I went to Uni. At least at my uni everyone that transferred in ended up not getting scholarships (we were told we would get them but constantly got a run around or financial aid would schedule meetings with us after the due date). We all ended up paying a little more than those that went all 4 years (who just maintained their scholarships).
Isn’t that even a better argument for going to a two year college? What if they spent those first two years spending more at a four year college and still had no degree?
But if the students didn’t complete a 2 year degree while staying at home, what are the chances of them completing a four year degree when they would have more autonomy and less oversight?
Part time work pays $10-15/hour. At 20 hours a work (which is nontrivial at difficult programs) you’d still easily accrue $1k/month from leftover rent/food/transit/etc.
Many students don’t have the options to stay home.
I’m a proponent of cc’s, but the discussion is about four year public schools being affordable.
I don’t want to be too pressing, but I’m guessing you’re in your forties or older, solely based on how out of touch are your responses (I.e. just do this, things aren’t so bad!).
I’m in the process of having an upcoming senior in high school - yeah I’m doing my research right now and know what the current costs of colleges are in GA.
Our plan is just what I outlined.
- a two year school that is part of the four year program at a local college where all of the credit transfers.
- staying at home for the first two years and we will pay for her car + car insurance.
- She will work part time just for spending money and incidentals.
- Since we won’t have to pay for room and board, she can get student loans that should cover tuition.
- That gives us four more years to get things together to help pay the student loans after she graduates (step daughter, I had no reason to worry about putting a child through college until 7 years ago).
I have a relative, whose parents just did something similar. He went to my alma mater for two years and with my encouragement, he transferred to a state school in Atlanta for a better curriculum and better networking opportunities.
They were in a position to save for his college, but his parents also put limits on the type of degree that he could get and the amount he could spend.
In-state tuition at University of Maryland is $10,000. You don’t need to take loans for living expenses, you can get a job. (A big part of what has made college “unaffordable” is not tuition increases, but the idea that people must be full-time students. That tacks on an additional $15k or so in living expenses each year, which is more than the tuition at all but the most expensive public colleges. To be fair, part of that is the exploding price of housing in many college towns, the bad job market for high school graduates, and the fact that we have infantilized teenagers so that they don’t go into college with job experience that might make them employable.)
> A big part of what has made college “unaffordable” is not tuition increases, but the idea that people must be full-time students.
Christ, it's like the FLOSS "time-isn't-money" scam got bored and decided to tackle higher education.
Any freshman at a four-year college who can "afford" a part time job along with their studies has the perfect detection system for a low quality education and should make their exit posthaste.
If you read this and think your college days are a counterexample, please allow yourself some time for silent contemplation before responding. (Contemplation-- that endeavor which apparently only gets introduced around graduate school nowadays.)
There are quite a few private colleges that have a tuition of about $2000/semester. It is entirely possible to get a bachelors for under $20k if you shop around.
Or, if you live somewhere like Oregon, if you graduate from an Oregon high school, the state will cover your tuition to a state college.
The one person I know who is getting full state funding for community college in Oregon is waiting to see if the program they're in will be renewed next year. If not, they won't be continuing on to a bachelors degree. Note that this program is only for those that are essentially financially destitute.
Edit: All I can find is the Oregon Promise covering only up to 18k highschool students with a GPA over 2.5. This program does not cover anything beyond Community College. Seems much more limited/shitty than the Seattle Promise (free Community College for all highschoolers)
same here, and I went ~30 years ago. Lower class rates are between $9-$10k/year (was looking at two different schools recently - both in that ballpark, which included some books, expenses, etc). IIRC, my jr/sr years credit hour costs were higher, so I'd probably figure those might be, say, $14k? It seems that between books and some living expenses, many 'in state' schools can be done for < $15k/year. This is still fairly expensive (to my eyes) - figuring 4 years, that might get you to around $50k.
The following estimated annual costs for 2018-19 are for full-time students living on campus, excluding costs of books, supplies, clothing, travel, and personal expenses:
Sure, I think huge student loans are bad for society, I was just wondering what your reasoning was, and I'm obnoxious enough to prod you to make the case that a $30,000 obligation is materially different.
It’s only a $30,000 obligation if you’re making more than ~$90,000/year, and there’s no interest attached.
A non-trivial number of those students would never make enough to pay off the loans. Ever. That’s not an exaggeration and happens in more than 50% of cases at expensive HBCs.
The real handicap is the lost compounding as many will sacrifice saving for retirement, emergency funds, or otherwise use funds that can be invested for long term security.
This is the natural consequence of unrestrained usury in a market for things everyone needs one of. See also - housing. Only the bankers benefit in the end.
