Jump to content

Menu

Article: The U.S. Will Forgive at Least $108 Billion in Student Debt


MarkT
 Share

Recommended Posts

I personally hope it doesn't stay. My kids have had too many family members mock them for not taking on debt for UG and flaunt that "I'm not going to end up having to pay it back anyway. The govt is going to forgive college loans. Just wait." I have family members whose parents paid 100% of UG and they took out college loans and bought cars and went on expensive vacations.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd want a case by case basis somehow.  

 

The youngster from a lower income family who took loans to go to school and med school, then chose to work in his hometown for less pay than s/he could have gotten elsewhere?  I'd love to see their loans forgiven.  The youngster from a higher income family who majored in partying and barely graduated with a 2.0, then wonders why s/he can't find a job?  Not so much.  Life might have to teach lessons.

 

There's tons in between, of course, but a blanket yes or no seems wrong to me.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all this will do is encourage loan abuse, including being an incentive for those students who have no sense of purpose or goals to remain in school and obtain multiple degrees without seeking employment. I also think it will encourage people to enroll in and drop out of programs more often. At this time, I have students who stick it out and make attempts to pass because they know they have skin in the game. I can see some of them giving up and dropping out if there are no repercussions.

 

I do think the for-profit schools need to be culpable for encouraging their students to accrue so much debt and then offering degrees that amount to nothing (in some circumstances). I'm not sure that loan forgiveness by the government is the vehicle by which that needs to be addressed. The schools should be held accountable and repay what they can.

 

Forgiving loans that have reached the 10 year mark? All that will do is encourage people to make minimum interest payments and drag out the process until it reaches the proper time frame.

 

I don't have a solution, though. :(

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Forgiving loans that have reached the 10 year mark? All that will do is encourage people to make minimum interest payments and drag out the process until it reaches the proper time frame.

Every portion of a loan forgiveness program has unintended negative consequences.  There are many choices a student-borrower has along the way and the decisions that are made greatly impact the ease to which the borrower can pay back the loan:  school attended, major chosen, how hard to study, which elective classes to take, what the living standard (housing, transportation, food, clothing, vacation, entertainment choices) is during college,  how many hours a semester to take, how hard to search for a job, which job is chosen, how hard to work at that job, etc.  

 

Suppose a student has three job offers.  Job A has a salary of $100,000, is in New York City, and the applicant can plan on working at least 80 hour weeks, including holidays. Job B has a salary of $60,000 a year, 2 weeks of vacation, fairly standard fringe benefits, and can plan on working 40 hours per week, and is located in a lower cost of living area.  Job C has a salary of $40,000 a year, 5 weeks of vacation, wonderful fringe benefits, and a casual work atmosphere in a low-stress environment, the company provides coffee, tea, sodas, breakfast, and lunch daily.  

 

Should a person who chooses C get the benefit of having a portion of the debt forgiven (While A not only pays the loan back but pays higher taxes, which go to subsidize C's loan forgiveness)?

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every portion of a loan forgiveness program has unintended negative consequences.  There are many choices a student-borrower has along the way and the decisions that are made greatly impact the ease to which the borrower can pay back the loan:  school attended, major chosen, how hard to study, which elective classes to take, what the living standard (housing, transportation, food, clothing, vacation, entertainment choices) is during college,  how many hours a semester to take, how hard to search for a job, which job is chosen, how hard to work at that job, etc.  

 

Suppose a student has three job offers.  Job A has a salary of $100,000, is in New York City, and the applicant can plan on working at least 80 hour weeks, including holidays. Job B has a salary of $60,000 a year, 2 weeks of vacation, fairly standard fringe benefits, and can plan on working 40 hours per week, and is located in a lower cost of living area.  Job C has a salary of $40,000 a year, 5 weeks of vacation, wonderful fringe benefits, and a casual work atmosphere in a low-stress environment, the company provides coffee, tea, sodas, breakfast, and lunch daily.  

 

Should a person who chooses C get the benefit of having a portion of the debt forgiven (While A not only pays the loan back but pays higher taxes, which go to subsidize C's loan forgiveness)?

First off, I think this person should count himself lucky that he has three job offers to begin with; he has choices. That's nothing to scoff at.

 

Secondly, I'm not sure if you think I was being argumentative or not because I would be asking the same questions. I believe that blanket loan forgiveness, just because the loan hasn't been repaid in ten years, is asking for trouble. I'm not implying that loan forgiveness isn't necessary or needed; people entering low pay jobs in at risk areas should indeed receive forgiveness (teachers, medical professsionals, etc) but the idea of forgiving loans at the 10 year mark simply because they are at the 10 year mark is questionable at best. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Secondly, I'm not sure if you think I was being argumentative or not because I would be asking the same questions. I believe that blanket loan forgiveness, just because the loan hasn't been repaid in ten years, is asking for trouble. I'm not implying that loan forgiveness isn't necessary or needed; people entering low pay jobs in at risk areas should indeed receive forgiveness (teachers, medical professsionals, etc) but the idea of forgiving loans at the 10 year mark simply because they are at the 10 year mark is questionable at best. 

I think a major issue here is why the loan is being forgiven--doing so provides incentives.  If loans are forgiven if a person accepts a job that serves society--that can be a good incentive society; we would be encouraging choices that benefit society as a whole.  

 

If loans are forgiven simply because someone has a lower income we encourage choices that are lower income related (accepting jobs with fewer work hours, better fringe benefits, etc.) and discourage work.  Forgiveness programs based on income or time don't focus incentives on positive decisions.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about kids who believe they deserve "the best" and accrue 3 times the debt bc they opted for an expensive school over a "lowly" public. Should taxpayers be responsible for funding dream school educations?

 

There is a thread on CC right now where the Dd refuses to step foot on a campus like Bama but her parents will be mortgaging their houses, depleting their savings, and moving back to a 3rd world country in order to survive during retirement. If that student had loans, I sure as heck don't want taxpayers responsible for paying them back.

 

Complicated scenarios never have simple solutions (that are good ones anyway.)

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think incentive-based repayment programs are pretty common. I didn't have loans (merit aid and graduate assistanceships), but the school I taught in would have qualified to repay student loans due to such a program, and I know many of my co-workers had looked for such options. I believe Teach for America is similarly motivated, and doesn't require the teaching license.

Edited by dmmetler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loans are not forgiven just because they are 10 years old. A calculation is done based on amount borrowed, AGI and number in the household. If a student works full time in a public service job or non-profit, the loans are forgiven after 10 years of payments. If a student makes 10 years of payments on the standard repayment plan, the loans are paid off. If a student qualified for a lower payment based on income, the amount remaining after 10 years of on time payments is forgiven. Income is reviewed every year by submitting your tax returns.

 

In the case of Income Based Repayment, the monthly payment is based on AGI, loan amount and household size. After 20 or 25 years (depends on the type of plan you qualify for) of on time payments, the remaining amount is forgiven. The interest (possibly principle too, can't remember) that is forgiven goes on your taxes as income. Income is reviewed every year.

 

There are some hoops to jump through and you have to make 10, 20 or 25 years of payments for anything to be forgiven. Sure some will abuse the policy. But I believe the benefits outweigh the possible abuses.

Edited by JulieA97
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn.  

 

The thing is, if you're 18 or 19 years old and get in way over your head, you have *no way out* unless you can manage to pay back those loans.  Otherwise, you're in debt to the federal government for life.  They're not dischargeable in bankruptcy, the interest, penalties, and fees tacked on can easily double the amount that was originally borrowed... it's truly awful.  This is my personal situation.  Without going into any more detail, the loans have snowballed into something that I have no realistic hope of repaying.  I simply accept that I'll pay the minimum until I die, because I was stupid when I was 18-21. 

 

But, on the other hand, the money that was borrowed should be repaid.

 

I think I could get behind an interest/penalty/fee forgiveness program after a certain amount of time, based on factors like income, trading volunteer hours for forgiveness, something like that.  

 

It's complicated, there are real people involved, and for every fraudster who uses student loan money for a vacation, are even more legitimate students who use the money for school (even if it turns out to be a poor decision down the road).

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just for the federal loans which have limits. This isn't for the kid that took out $100,000 for a fancy undergrad degree.

 

I think there are pros and cons of it but it isn't blanket loan forgiveness. The forgiven portion gets taxed as income too. Many people would be better off paying off their loans rather than stretching them out, paying more interest, and then paying income tax on forgiven amount.

 

I don't know what the answer is but it isn't the "get out of jail free" card it sounds like. Maybe for some people but not all or most.

Edited by teachermom2834
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of kids going off to college who do not have and cannot expect robust financial guidance. All this punitive talk presumes all kids are getting great advice. They're not. My parents made zero mention of cost. They were flat broke when I went off to college and had bad credit following a divorce. All debt was in my name and would have been the same whether I went to the UofA or my school of choice. Also, a huge chunk of federal student loan debt is not undergraduate debt where relatively low annual loan limits apply, it's graduate and professional school debt that can top 9k/year. Private loans do not qualify for loan forgiveness either and make up a large chunk of outstanding student debt.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different career choices have different expected income patterns.  Many with high levels of this debt incurred the debt for graduate education.  A doctor may expect to have a low income in the early years but a high income 20 years into a career.  A professional athlete may have a high income in early years but it will not continue past 10 years.  A program tied to a % of income for the first 10 to 15 years favors those with high incomes that are delayed until later in their careers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this does is make dh and I feel like suckers. We stretched grad school loans over 30 years, still repaying. We have never missed a payment, bought cheaper houses, made do with old cars, no vacations, etc. I am sympathetic, but at the same time, I am a little peeved.

 

Could I get a credit on my taxes for holding up my end of the bargain?

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Student loan debt in my mothers time-through the late 80s- is NOTHING like what today's students are facing. Folks with delayed income still pay as a proportion of their current income for 10-25 years. If you have it you pay. If you don't you won't. There are people who have their social security checks garnished to pay student loans. That's outrageous. It's not even the principal they're paying, it's the interest. Rates have been and can be again as high 8.25%. There is no other area of lending, secured or unsecured, where default is not a possibility and profit is guaranteed. That is the student loan market. Helping my kids make smart decisions is a gift and priviledge. There are parents paying off student loans for now deceased children. The system is messed up. Playing Monday morning quarterback with those whose lives and careers may not be as stable is tacky IMO.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I think this person should count himself lucky that he has three job offers to begin with; he has choices. That's nothing to scoff at.

 

Secondly, I'm not sure if you think I was being argumentative or not because I would be asking the same questions. I believe that blanket loan forgiveness, just because the loan hasn't been repaid in ten years, is asking for trouble. I'm not implying that loan forgiveness isn't necessary or needed; people entering low pay jobs in at risk areas should indeed receive forgiveness (teachers, medical professsionals, etc) but the idea of forgiving loans at the 10 year mark simply because they are at the 10 year mark is questionable at best. 

 

The programs which forgive at the 10 year mark do so not because the person is just at 10 years, but because they have worked in the public or community interest for those 10 years. This includes programs for doctors, nurses and teachers who commit to poor urban/rural areas and attorneys who work for community legal service programs or as prosecutors or public defenders. In short, people who accept work in lower-paying yet necessary positions within their profession. Yes, the Federal Government eats the cost of those degrees, but without those programs in place, local and state governments would have to pay higher salaries or subsidize in some other way to keep people in those positions.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this does is make dh and I feel like suckers. We stretched grad school loans over 30 years, still repaying. We have never missed a payment, bought cheaper houses, made do with old cars, no vacations, etc. I am sympathetic, but at the same time, I am a little peeved.

 

Could I get a credit on my taxes for holding up my end of the bargain?

 

If you are still paying on loans that old, you should look at whether you fall in the 25 year forgiveness program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Student loan debt in my mothers time-through the late 80s- is NOTHING like what today's students are facing. Folks with delayed income still pay as a proportion of their current income for 10-25 years. If you have it you pay. If you don't you won't. There are people who have their social security checks garnished to pay student loans. That's outrageous. It's not even the principal they're paying, it's the interest. Rates have been and can be again as high 8.25%. There is no other area of lending, secured or unsecured, where default is not a possibility and profit is guaranteed. That is the student loan market. Helping my kids make smart decisions is a gift and priviledge. There are parents paying off student loans for now deceased children. The system is messed up. Playing Monday morning quarterback with those who's lives and careers may not be as stable is tacky IMO.

But, other unsecured borrowing carries a much higher interest rate.  One of the reasons the government got into the student loan market to begin with is that education is something difficult to borrow for in the marketplace.  There is no collateral to secure the loan (the same holds true for credit cards, which is why they carry a high interest rate).  Students have little to no credit history for a lender to base expected repayment on.  There was a desire to provide a lower rate of interest for student loans than would be required in the private market based upon the riskiness of those loans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the political change coming up, I wouldn't count on any of this to stay.  Who knows what will happen?

 

From a taxpayers perspective, I don't know that it really matters. Most of this is just bad debt that's never getting repaid. The loans have government guarantees so we're on the hook for the $108B either way. I think forgiveness could be both more humane and cheaper long term than "extend and pretend". 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The programs which forgive at the 10 year mark do so not because the person is just at 10 years, but because they have worked in the public or community interest for those 10 years. This includes programs for doctors, nurses and teachers who commit to poor urban/rural areas and attorneys who work for community legal service programs or as prosecutors or public defenders. In short, people who accept work in lower-paying yet necessary positions within their profession. Yes, the Federal Government eats the cost of those degrees, but without those programs in place, local and state governments would have to pay higher salaries or subsidize in some other way to keep people in those positions.

From an economic standpoint it would be more efficient for the local and state governments to pay the higher salaries necessary to attract people to those positions rather than subsidize those positions through student loans.  Each market distortion impacts decisions and reallocates resources.  It would be more efficient to pay those individuals more and have them use that additional income to pay off their loans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, other unsecured borrowing carries a much higher interest rate. One of the reasons the government got into the student loan market to begin with is that education is something difficult to borrow for in the marketplace. There is no collateral to secure the loan (the same holds true for credit cards, which is why they carry a high interest rate). Students have little to no credit history for a lender to base expected repayment on. There was a desire to provide a lower rate of interest for student loans than would be required in the private market based upon the riskiness of those loans.

Credit card rates are higher now but only since fed student loan rates were capped at 8.25. The rates on my grad school loans were twice my federal loan rates when bank to bank interest rates were near zero. My mom's law school loan rates were in the teens at one point. Education is, itself, a public good and the govt. got in the business not just to make loans available but to ensure that we have an educated populace. If you restrict the ability to pay for school to only the wealthiest or most financially astute families, you disincentivize education and waste a ton of talent. In most of the western world, higher ed/school is either free or incredibly cheap for this reason. Our system is set up this way for the benefit of banks and higher ed institutions. Punish them, not folks trying to get ahead by learning.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an economic standpoint it would be more efficient for the local and state governments to pay the higher salaries necessary to attract people to those positions rather than subsidize those positions through student loans. Each market distortion impacts decisions and reallocates resources. It would be more efficient to pay those individuals more and have them use that additional income to pay off their loans.

Yes, but they won't because there is ZERO respect for public sector workers and expertise. It would also make it very difficult for nonprofits to attract workers too. They can rarely afford to match public or private sector pay. Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do we poor clucks do?  Save up our money from our McD jobs so we can avoid loans?  Oh wait, that doesn't work.  I know first hand it does not.  Ok so should they just not go to college?  I mean after all, nobody has any business spending money on something they can't afford in the first place.  Education included.  Those who were stupid enough to not be born into a family with some money don't deserve to go to college.

 

It doesn't take much to rack up debt.  It's not always about being stupid with money.  Or wasting time on a useless education.  A lot of people see it as a means to an end and it often is.  It was for me.

 

So yeah some of these attitudes stink quite frankly.

 

 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but they won't because there is ZERO respect for public sector workers and expertise. It would also make it very difficult for nonprofits to attract workers too. They can rarely afford to match public or private sector pay.

If the federal government desires to subsidize non-profit and public sector jobs, it would be much more efficient to do that directly than do it through student loan forgiveness.  Then graduates with and without student loans would be equally as likely to enter into public and non-profit jobs.  As it is there is more incentive for those with student loans to enter these areas than those without.  

 

Also, it is odd to me that someone who works for a nonprofit for 10 years would have remaining debt forgiven, even if that individual then leaves the nonprofit for a high-paying job, but someone who comes out of school, works at a high-paying job and gains experience, and then wants to go into the nonprofit sector to use that knowledge and experience pays back all of their loan.  Or, a person who works at a nonprofit for 9 1/2 years and then is laid off from the nonprofit and takes a job in the private sector gets no benefit of loan forgiveness.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do we poor clucks do? Save up our money from our McD jobs so we can avoid loans? Oh wait, that doesn't work. I know first hand it does not. Ok so should they just not go to college? I mean after all, nobody has any business spending money on something they can't afford in the first place. Education included. Those who were stupid enough to not be born into a family with some money don't deserve to go to college.

 

It doesn't take much to rack up debt. It's not always about being stupid with money. Or wasting time on a useless education. A lot of people see it as a means to an end and it often is. It was for me.

 

So yeah some of these attitudes stink quite frankly.

What my son's friends are doing--

1. Work at a place that offers tuition reimbursement. Save until CC classes are done and move to a 4 year U, working part time and using savings. Alternate a semester of work with a semester of school.

2. Work at parents business while going to CC. Save until transferring to U. Co-op or alternate work at home with school by the semester.

3. Votech In high school, work a few years while living at home rent free, saving up for college.

4.military. take classes, save.

5. Live rent free with gp in return for light housekeeping. Work enough to eat and study till done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a major issue here is why the loan is being forgiven--doing so provides incentives.  If loans are forgiven if a person accepts a job that serves society--that can be a good incentive society; we would be encouraging choices that benefit society as a whole.  

 

If loans are forgiven simply because someone has a lower income we encourage choices that are lower income related (accepting jobs with fewer work hours, better fringe benefits, etc.) and discourage work.  Forgiveness programs based on income or time don't focus incentives on positive decisions.

After reading the info here , that is exactly one of the issues with this program. It states that the loans are forgiven strictly as a consequence of low income and family size. The ability to forgive loans for serving in public sector service positions is a separate program.

 

There are two types of forgiveness - interest forgiveness and student loan forgiveness. Each is calculated differently.

 

***I have no idea where I got the 10 year bench mark as I stated earlier. Evidently the bulk of forgiveness is associated with loan repayment schedules of 20-25 years. The public service loan forgiveness kicks in with the 10 year loans.

 

--

I guess I am amazed that it appears difficult to meet the requirements for forgiveness yet so many people are having their interest and loans forgiven. The amounts are astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The programs which forgive at the 10 year mark do so not because the person is just at 10 years, but because they have worked in the public or community interest for those 10 years. This includes programs for doctors, nurses and teachers who commit to poor urban/rural areas and attorneys who work for community legal service programs or as prosecutors or public defenders. In short, people who accept work in lower-paying yet necessary positions within their profession. Yes, the Federal Government eats the cost of those degrees, but without those programs in place, local and state governments would have to pay higher salaries or subsidize in some other way to keep people in those positions.

I understand this and that is not what I was talking about.

 

Here's the link for the public service loan forgiveness program. It's not the same thing as what the OP originally posted about.

Edited by Scoutermom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What my son's friends are doing--

1. Work at a place that offers tuition reimbursement. Save until CC classes are done and move to a 4 year U, working part time and using savings. Alternate a semester of work with a semester of school.

2. Work at parents business while going to CC. Save until transferring to U. Co-op or alternate work at home with school by the semester.

3. Votech In high school, work a few years while living at home rent free, saving up for college.

4.military. take classes, save.

5. Live rent free with gp in return for light housekeeping. Work enough to eat and study till done.

 

Alternatives like this - much better than taking on massive debt. Or don't go at all. The problem goes way beyond people who can't afford to go vs the ultra-rich who can afford it. It affects all who are not extremely wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What my son's friends are doing--

1. Work at a place that offers tuition reimbursement. Save until CC classes are done and move to a 4 year U, working part time and using savings. Alternate a semester of work with a semester of school.

2. Work at parents business while going to CC. Save until transferring to U. Co-op or alternate work at home with school by the semester.

3. Votech In high school, work a few years while living at home rent free, saving up for college.

4.military. take classes, save.

5. Live rent free with gp in return for light housekeeping. Work enough to eat and study till done.

 

Ok I'll tell you how that would have worked for me:

 

1.  I was able to get a job at McDs because it was one of the few places within walking distance.  I did not earn enough money to afford transportation.  I was paid minimum wage and had to use that money to pay for basic necessities. 

 

2.  My mother was unemployed due to a severe mental illness.  My father worked in a screw machine factory when he could manage it because he too had a severe mental illness. There were no options for me there.

 

3.  I started off in a votech program and could not afford to continue because I had no transportation to the work site.  I also would have had to spend extra money on uniforms.  Money that I did not have. 

 

4.  Military...not for everyone.

 

5.  I did live rent free with my parents.  That made it possible for me to go at all.  That was just the little bit of edge I needed so that I could manage to go to college.  But that didn't pay for college. 

Remember, it takes money OR support to make money in the first place which is something I think a lot of people forget.  One thing I like about the area I live in now is that there is some affordable public transportation.  I feel WAY WAY better about my kids' options.  I had no options.  I lived in an expensive area with no way to get around. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

Remember, it takes money OR support to make money in the first place which is something I think a lot of people forget.  One thing I like about the area I live in now is that there is some affordable public transportation.  I feel WAY WAY better about my kids' options.  I had no options.  I lived in an expensive area with no way to get around. 

And this takes us back to discussions about access to higher education... 

 

We live in an area where the nearest public uni is an hour away. Yes, we have two expensive LACs within 20 mins but not everyone can afford the tuition at these schools. There is no public transportation to the cities with the public unis. There is little affordable housing in the towns with the LACs. Students in our area have few viable choices.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the interest rate that killed us. Until a couple of years ago (with new programs, like SoFi) there was no way to refinance the loans. We have refinanced at a lower rate and paid off one, but since we amortized our loans at the beginning in order to afford a house (which was far and away the best financial decision) we were locked in. 

I am sympathetic, obviously we took the loans and in general it was the correct decision. Dh was able to finish the degree and get started earning (of course, weathering a recession took its toll on our finances as well).

The whole thing leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Ds1 will have the basic federal loans which really are manageable. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this takes us back to discussions about access to higher education... 

 

We live in an area where the nearest public uni is an hour away. Yes, we have two expensive LACs within 20 mins but not everyone can afford the tuition at these schools. There is no public transportation to the cities with the public unis. There is little affordable housing in the towns with the LACs. Students in our area have few viable choices.

 

That's another WONDERFUL thing about my area.  The CC is down the street on the bus line.  There is another CC on the bus line in one city over.  In both cases, a bus pass is included even if you take only one class!  It's fantastic.  I feel like I made out in the bus pass alone for my kid.  He loves it.   And they have excellent programs there with good transfer agreements.  I had nothing like that where I grew up.

 

There are also universities on the bus line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the interest rate that killed us. Until a couple of years ago (with new programs, like SoFi) there was no way to refinance the loans. We have refinanced at a lower rate and paid off one, but since we amortized our loans at the beginning in order to afford a house (which was far and away the best financial decision) we were locked in. 

I am sympathetic, obviously we took the loans and in general it was the correct decision. Dh was able to finish the degree and get started earning (of course, weathering a recession took its toll on our finances as well).

The whole thing leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Ds1 will have the basic federal loans which really are manageable. 

 

They told me the interest rate when I went to school.  At that point I had so little experience with money that that had no meaning to me.  It was 11 percent at the time.  Now that I know more about this stuff, I know what highway robbery that is.

 

I was able to refinance some of my loans for a lower rate thankfully.  However, I did have to take on a graduated repayment so that, ya know, I could pay my bills after I graduated.  Of course that means I've paid my loans over probably twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my area there is no transportation. One does what recent arrivals do...bicycle, walk, or find someone to give you a ride until you do can afford a vehicle. For one of my sons friends, this meant dropping out of sports, working at mcd throughout high school, and by mid senior year he had his jalopy. Until then, he walked. Out here, rural, high schoolers walk zero to two miles to a school bus stop, depending on the road they live on, so picking a kid up walking is pretty routine.

 

The high schoolers here are sitting in a half day of study hall senior year. The district sends multiple busses by the CC daily, but they wont allow a DE student to use one of the many empty seats, or a student with four study halls to get to a job in town.

Edited by Heigh Ho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

The high schoolers are sitting in a half day of study hall senior year. The district sends multiple busses by the CC daily, but they wont allow a DE student to use one of the many empty seats.

This made my eye twitch. What a wasted opportunity. Is the school district opposed to DE or the CC? I guess it doesn't really matter; either way those students are missing out on wonderful opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll tell you how that would have worked for me:

 

1.  I was able to get a job at McDs because it was one of the few places within walking distance.  I did not earn enough money to afford transportation.  I was paid minimum wage and had to use that money to pay for basic necessities. 

 

2.  My mother was unemployed due to a severe mental illness.  My father worked in a screw machine factory when he could manage it because he too had a severe mental illness. There were no options for me there.

 

3.  I started off in a votech program and could not afford to continue because I had no transportation to the work site.  I also would have had to spend extra money on uniforms.  Money that I did not have. 

 

4.  Military...not for everyone.

 

5.  I did live rent free with my parents.  That made it possible for me to go at all.  That was just the little bit of edge I needed so that I could manage to go to college.  But that didn't pay for college. 

Remember, it takes money OR support to make money in the first place which is something I think a lot of people forget.  One thing I like about the area I live in now is that there is some affordable public transportation.  I feel WAY WAY better about my kids' options.  I had no options.  I lived in an expensive area with no way to get around. 

These are examples of serious issues that our society should address.  I favor educational grant programs, innovative work-study internship programs that cover basic living and education expenses, better vo-tech programs, and funding for mental health issues.   Spending money on areas that directly impact a young person's ability to receive education or training to become a self-supporting adult would be much more productive and helpful than programs that subsidize and forgive student loans.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are examples of serious issues that our society should address.  I favor educational grant programs, innovative work-study internship programs that cover basic living and education expenses, better vo-tech programs, and funding for mental health issues.   Spending money on areas that directly impact a young person's ability to receive education or training to become a self-supporting adult would be much more productive and helpful than programs that subsidize and forgive student loans.  

:thumbup1:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This made my eye twitch. What a wasted opportunity. Is the school district opposed to DE or the CC? I guess it doesn't really matter; either way those students are missing out on wonderful opportunities.

Both. They dont want any student taking a class at the college level on the school district's dime. Additionaly, there is anger that students are choosing four study halls instead of art electives. They are trying to be a STEAM school, but the students want S, T, and M, not A, so the students use their study halls to learn the material for the unoffered AP courses such as microeconomics, statistics, chem, env. Science. Most can get last years prep book for a few bucks, then find the exam fee if they arent eligible for the fee to be picked up by private funding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is hitting home for me (see my Exit interview thread). My DD is at that point where she has to decide on her repayment schedule and guesstimate what her income might be 1, 3,5,10 years down the road. She has no idea. How can she know?

 

I am on the Income Based Repayment program. It's based on my income NOW, not my income in 10 years. When you go to apply for these programs they ask you questions to help you determine what is the best program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is hitting home for me (see my Exit interview thread). My DD is at that point where she has to decide on her repayment schedule and guesstimate what her income might be 1, 3,5,10 years down the road. She has no idea. How can she know?

 

When I did this, I chose a low repayment schedule, but paid off more when I could. As long as there's not a penalty for making extra payments (not sure if any SL's are set up that way but it's good to find out for sure), then you're safe. You make the minimum payment when income is low, and can double or triple that etc... and pay it off early if income is higher. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are examples of serious issues that our society should address.  I favor educational grant programs, innovative work-study internship programs that cover basic living and education expenses, better vo-tech programs, and funding for mental health issues.   Spending money on areas that directly impact a young person's ability to receive education or training to become a self-supporting adult would be much more productive and helpful than programs that subsidize and forgive student loans.  

 

When 70% of students are "non-traditional" students, building the system on the assumption that the vast majority are unmarried, childless 18-22 year olds entering college straight out of high school is not a good strategy either. 

 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015025.pdf

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...