"Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans" (article)

[justasque]

I don't blame the student loan industry at all.  I do believe college tuition today way exceeds the value and this needs to be fixed.  I believe this bubble will burst like every other bubble eventually does.  Meanwhile don't blame the banks who provide a way for working-class people to afford to get into a well-paying profession.

 

ETA:  I mean, I don't blame the student loan industry in cases like this, where a qualified student attended a respectable school.

 

I'm not talking about cases where those in the industry should know that the degree is unlikely to lead to a job that pays for the debt.

This is an interesting point.  What would it be like if banks took the student's major into account when deciding whether to grant the loan?  And perhaps their grades as well?  

 

It would mean that only those who could afford it themselves could major in certain things (dance, philosophy, acting come to mind), and also that those who could not afford it but had the grades to show they would be worth the investment could get the education needed for careers in various STEM majors and other well-paying fields (which would make the fields more competitive).  The middle ground - teachers, social workers - might be problematic - we need good people in those professions.  But it might change the model entirely for providing education for those majors for which the loans wouldn't give a good return on investment.  Dancers might be more likely to become company apprentices rather than college students, for example.  More work/study programs might emerge, where students work half-time in their field while studying towards their degree.  And co-op programs could be very helpful in a number of fields.  

 

And maybe the college's reputation and graduate employment rate could play a role, which would make quick work of eliminating scam programs and diploma mills.  

 

Worth a good think, perhaps.

[TechWife]

This is an interesting point.  What would it be like if banks took the student's major into account when deciding whether to grant the loan?  And perhaps their grades as well?  

 

It would mean that only those who could afford it themselves could major in certain things (dance, philosophy, acting come to mind), and also that those who could not afford it but had the grades to show they would be worth the investment could get the education needed for careers in various STEM majors and other well-paying fields (which would make the fields more competitive).  The middle ground - teachers, social workers - might be problematic - we need good people in those professions.  But it might change the model entirely for providing education for those majors for which the loans wouldn't give a good return on investment.  Dancers might be more likely to become company apprentices rather than college students, for example.  More work/study programs might emerge, where students work half-time in their field while studying towards their degree.  And co-op programs could be very helpful in a number of fields.  

 

And maybe the college's reputation and graduate employment rate could play a role, which would make quick work of eliminating scam programs and diploma mills.  

 

Worth a good think, perhaps.

 

The problem I have with this model is that it reduces education to a financial formula. There is value in having knowledge, whether or not that knowledge is going to reap a financial reward. 

 

Additionally, what happens to the dancer who apprenticed with a company and didn't go to college? I can tell you for a fact that when they are too old to dance or are injured and can no longer dance, they are not prepared to enter the traditional work force. However, if you have someone who can dance and has a college education, they have many more opportunities both within the arts community and outside the arts community. 

 

I love the idea of more apprenticeships and work study programs, but the entire educational system would have to be reformed, which is not very likely as long as people place higher education on a pedestal. 

 

The other countries people have mentioned, such as Germany, who have much lower costs to the college students than the US does have vastly different educational systems. People leave their secondary schools prepared for the work force if they aren't going to college. This is not something that the US can do at this point. 

[justasque]

The problem I have with this model is that it reduces education to a financial formula. There is value in having knowledge, whether or not that knowledge is going to reap a financial reward. 

 

 

Yes, this is a concern.   But right now there is no one in the system (except the parents, if they are savvy) to say to that dance major "Taking on $100K in loans might not be the best way to start your dance career."  Change the economics, and schools will be forced to think about their programs - can they make it easier to double major in dance and, say, physical therapy?  Can they structure the program so that the dance major also gets an AA degree in something around physiology, or business, or teaching?  Can they create a dance major using night classes, so that students can work a day job to pay for it?

 

Would the bank have lent that money for two Columbia degrees in writing, for a guy who feels he's too good to take on a job to pay it back, if they weren't subsidized/underwritten/whatever-it's-called by the federal government (aka the student's neighbors)?  If we are lending money to students in order to support the arts (and other majors that don't reap financial rewards), would we be better off if we were more selective in choosing who should be eligible for this funding, rather than giving it to anyone who is accepted to any college, regardless of the quality of either college or student?

 

I don't know the answer, I'm just mulling it over.  I've seen too many starry-eyed teens (and their non-savvy parents) choose majors and schools that will leave them in unfathomable debt for many, many years to come, and there are no built-in checks in the system to help them consider whether this is a path they really want to go down.  

[amsunshine]

Additionally, what happens to the dancer who apprenticed with a company and didn't go to college? I can tell you for a fact that when they are too old to dance or are injured and can no longer dance, they are not prepared to enter the traditional work force. However, if you have someone who can dance and has a college education, they have many more opportunities both within the arts community and outside the arts community. 

 

Actually, with dance, getting an apprenticeship with a company should usually come early, before college.  This is because as a dancer ages, his/her prospects of dancing professionally for any length of time decrease.  The conventional wisdom for dancers is that they can dance now, go to college later.  There are other advantages to this, as well, in terms of college aid.  For example, if a dancer is dancing for a company for a number of years, the status of being independent will help that student get better aid for college after he/she is done dancing professionally.

 

But I see what you are saying in terms of the value of a college degree, even for those in the arts.  I just wanted to point out that if one is serious about dancing in particular, and actually has the potential to dance for a professional company, college would typically be delayed (not necessarily eliminated).

[amsunshine]

Yes, this is a concern.   But right now there is no one in the system (except the parents, if they are savvy) to say to that dance major "Taking on $100K in loans might not be the best way to start your dance career."  Change the economics, and schools will be forced to think about their programs - can they make it easier to double major in dance and, say, physical therapy?  Can they structure the program so that the dance major also gets an AA degree in something around physiology, or business, or teaching?  Can they create a dance major using night classes, so that students can work a day job to pay for it?

 

Would the bank have lent that money for two Columbia degrees in writing, for a guy who feels he's too good to take on a job to pay it back, if they weren't subsidized/underwritten/whatever-it's-called by the federal government (aka the student's neighbors)?  If we are lending money to students in order to support the arts (and other majors that don't reap financial rewards), would we be better off if we were more selective in choosing who should be eligible for this funding, rather than giving it to anyone who is accepted to any college, regardless of the quality of either college or student?

 

I don't know the answer, I'm just mulling it over.  I've seen too many starry-eyed teens (and their non-savvy parents) choose majors and schools that will leave them in unfathomable debt for many, many years to come, and there are no built-in checks in the system to help them consider whether this is a path they really want to go down.  

 

I agree this is a big part of the problem and lenders are capitalizing on starry eyed students with non-savvy parents.

 

I wonder what this guy's degrees were from Columbia?  Were they writing degrees?  

 

 

[8filltheheart]

The problem I have with this model is that it reduces education to a financial formula.

But isn't it already? FA itself does not take into acct anything except a formula. It is precisely bc the PTB have created a system where everyone, regardless of career or ability, is expected to be on a college path that much of this mess exists. We did use to graduate students who could move directly toward vocation vs having to pursue higher ed for low level entry jobs. (I went to a small rural school and when I graduated in the 80s, I would guess over 1/2 of my graduating class had completed the votech high school plan. We only had a few classrooms full of AP and college prep students. The rest were gen ed and votech classes.

 

The current scenario in this country was created. It has not always been. I can't see that it has improved quality of educational outcomes or job opportunities. My personal view is the reverse is true.

[Guest2]

I thought for sure I'd have the same sort of result. I was absolutely shocked to see that the adjusted price I paid for nursing school is about $30 MORE per credit hour (including fees) than the current cost to go to the same school. I graduated in 1999. Perhaps by 1999 tuition was already skyrocketing, but in the 80s it was still much lower.

Maybe location and states' ability or desire to finance state schools have changed more in some areas. The schools I am talking about have current tutitions ranging from $7,000 ( with fees..around $4,000 without) to $10,000 now. I love the caculator, i was just using a rough rule of 72. I was also pretty surprised... I was expecting huge skrocketing tuition costs and didn't find them. It is still more than I want to pay for the next 14 years though!

[creekland]

Seems to me we shouldn't even be discussion student loans and this article.  His loans weren't student loans.  His tuition was paid.  They were living expense loans.  I'm wondering what kind of lifestyle he lived and whether he had any sort of job at the time.

 

This really is more about whether one should default on their bank or credit card loans merely because they can't find a job they like (vs a job in general).

 

My theater/acting major already knows he very well could be working in a "non-major" job.  He'll be getting a taste in another week or so when he takes on an overnight shift job packing potato chips for $9.50/hour (summer job).

 

He's also not going to have more than the federal average for student loans.  Personally, I feel those amounts are worthy amounts for students to pay for a degree.  More than that?  It'd be iffy.  

 

(And yes, we have our parent portion of payments - no debt.  That's a decision we make on how to use our $$.  What the degree is in doesn't really matter to us.  We want them to follow their dreams and see what happens - as long as they understand what that means and he does.)

[SparrowsNest]

The problem I have with this model is that it reduces education to a financial formula. There is value in having knowledge, whether or not that knowledge is going to reap a financial reward. 

 

 

 

My father and my husband are both truly lifelong learners.  They are passionate about history, and they read, research, and study. Just a library card, internet connection, and a few splurges on The Great Courses.  

 

There is value in having knowledge, but it doesn't have to put you a quarter of a million dollars unless you want an experience and a piece of paper to go with it.

[TechWife]

The problem I have with this model is that it reduces education to a financial formula. There is value in having knowledge, whether or not that knowledge is going to reap a financial reward. 

 

 

 

But isn't it already? 

 

 

Yes, it is. But the scenario proposed perpetuates the mindset and doesn't support the intangible value of having an educated society. 

 

ETA: Maybe "unquantifiable" would be a better word than intangible? Not sure how to get across what I want to communicate. 

[TechWife]

My father and my husband are both truly lifelong learners.  They are passionate about history, and they read, research, and study. Just a library card, internet connection, and a few splurges on The Great Courses.  

 

There is value in having knowledge, but it doesn't have to put you a quarter of a million dollars unless you want an experience and a piece of paper to go with it.

 

Our family is made up of lifelong learners. In our home, we routinely read about and discuss a huge variety of topics. However, our influence is somewhat limited. What a "piece of paper" gets is a voice, a seat at the table. It is, as my husband sometimes says, a union card. Degrees validate knowledge. There are many fields that have impact on our culture where, in order to be taken seriously and in order to gain entry into the circles who have influence, one must be able to prove their knowledge. Computer science, psychology, biological research and medicine are all areas that have tremendous impact on our current society. However, in order to be heard in those fields, one must be able to get in the door of the labs and conference rooms. The piece of paper that successful students earn opens a crack in that door and then their talent, insight and ability to communicate determines if they get to eventually sit at the conference room table or stand at the microscope where life-altering discoveries are made, their applications are determined and their impact on society is set on a trajectory. 

 

So, how does this idea translate to other fields, where the career course might not be as clear as those that I mentioned above? If the general population is well versed in history, philosophy, religion, the arts and a myriad of other fields, several things can happen. First, it increases the likelihood that those who are in those targeted, specialized fields have been exposed to a wider set of ideas, which in turn, assists them in understanding the impact of what they are doing. Secondly, when these new discoveries, inventions, theories and/or practices are on their way to general use,  an educated general population is more able to participate in knowledgeable discussions, bring informed insight into the implications of the discovery, further uses for the discovery and to promote that which has a positive impact and to attempt to put the breaks on that which has a negative impact to the overall culture. 

 

 

Right now our general populace is getting their information from social media or the news outlets, who seem to be quoting twitter feeds more than they are talking to people who have a thorough knowledge of the news of the day. People are listening only to those with whom they know they will agree rather than considering various viewpoints and drawing informed conclusions. Personally, I don't think such approaches are valuable to society. I have often longed for a commentator or an interviewer to have a thorough understanding of world history - the questions they ask and the statements that they make would be so vastly different, which in turn, would help to educate their readers/viewers/listeners. People who study history, the arts, philosophy, literature and many other fields, enrich our lives. 

 

If everyone gets a higher education only for the purpose of procuring a job, instead of procuring an education, then our culture will loose much of it's richness. We need art majors, history majors and philosophy majors. Who else will curate the past and the present? 

[SKL]

Yes, it is. But the scenario proposed perpetuates the mindset and doesn't support the intangible value of having an educated society. 

 

ETA: Maybe "unquantifiable" would be a better word than intangible? Not sure how to get across what I want to communicate. 

 

But how educated does the society need to be, and how much money is it worth taking away from other societal goals?  One could argue that 13 years of full-time, free, local education ought to be enough to produce individuals who can read, write, compute, and think.  A booklist , an internet connection, and a few real jobs ought to round it out for those who don't aspire to professional careers.

 

It seems strange to me that with information being so easy to acquire nowadays (for free or very cheap), people are willing to pay more than ever for a piece of paper that really proves very little.  It can't last much longer.

 

Though, when I was doing my MBA at a private university, it was understood that many/most people chose that school expecting to make social connections that would hopefully lead to well-paying jobs.  (I had a very different reason, but this is what others said.)  Ultimately it was probably bunk.  The nearby state university was where employed managers were doing their MBAs (or teaching) nights/weekends, and I suspect the social connections there were worth more.

[TechWife]

But how educated does the society need to be, and how much money is it worth taking away from other societal goals?  One could argue that 13 years of full-time, free, local education ought to be enough to produce individuals who can read, write, compute, and think.  A booklist , an internet connection, and a few real jobs ought to round it out for those who don't aspire to professional careers.

 

 

I think this is a great point, but the fact is that in the US, 13 years is not enough time because that time is not used well. In order to produce individuals who can read, write, compute and think, our current K-12 system would have to drastically change in both content and delivery. 

 

Time spent does not equate to quality. 

[justasque]

 

 

If everyone gets a higher education only for the purpose of procuring a job, instead of procuring an education, then our culture will loose much of it's richness. We need art majors, history majors and philosophy majors. Who else will curate the past and the present? 

 

 

My father and my husband are both truly lifelong learners.  They are passionate about history, and they read, research, and study. Just a library card, internet connection, and a few splurges on The Great Courses.  

 

There is value in having knowledge, but it doesn't have to put you a quarter of a million dollars unless you want an experience and a piece of paper to go with it.

I think both of these things are true.  There's a balance.  The bank might say, "We will fund history majors, but they must have a decent chance of doing well in school, be studying at a school with a decent program, and maintain good grades, and given the current market for history majors, we will only allow them to borrow a max of $X."  The school, in turn, might say, "We know it's hard for history majors to get a job in their field, so we are changing up our program so that along with the history courses, students must minor in something that makes them more marketable, and we're changing to a co-op/internship model so that students have relevant work experience on their resume before graduation.  Also, we're scaling back our plans to build a fancy new dorm building, instead creating one that is less expensive to build and maintain."  The system would reward dedicated students and schools that keep the job market in mind.  

 

There will always be schools willing to take the money of wealthy students regardless of what they want to study.  

[TechWife]

I think both of these things are true.  There's a balance.  The bank might say, "We will fund history majors, but they must have a decent chance of doing well in school, be studying at a school with a decent program, and maintain good grades, and given the current market for history majors, we will only allow them to borrow a max of $X."  The school, in turn, might say, "We know it's hard for history majors to get a job in their field, so we are changing up our program so that along with the history courses, students must minor in something that makes them more marketable, and we're changing to a co-op/internship model so that students have relevant work experience on their resume before graduation.  Also, we're scaling back our plans to build a fancy new dorm building, instead creating one that is less expensive to build and maintain."  The system would reward dedicated students and schools that keep the job market in mind.  

 

There will always be schools willing to take the money of wealthy students regardless of what they want to study.  

 

But, again, you are looking at the financial impact, not the societal impact (yes, I know finances impact society). 

 

Schools already offer the ability to get major/minor combinations much as what you are describing. A student can major in history and minor in management. Internships are common. It falls to the student to take advantage of the programs that are already available. 

 

You would be okay if our culture functions long term at the point where only the wealthy have access to the advanced study of history, art, literature and ideas? If so, then the wealthy will be the only ones who are participating in discussions, understanding the implications and promoting and/or discouraging applications for new discoveries/inventions. The general populace will not be educated enough to do this - it takes many voices, not just a few.

[amsunshine]

If everyone gets a higher education only for the purpose of procuring a job, instead of procuring an education, then our culture will loose much of it's richness. We need art majors, history majors and philosophy majors. Who else will curate the past and the present? 

 

I see what you are saying.  And that is the author's point, in a way.  Why should he get a job he despises just to pay back his loans when there is value and personal reward in what he is currently doing that doesn't pay the bills, apparently.

 

Unfortunately, the system we have today doesn't allow for getting an education just for the sake of a rich culture.  (Well, it depends on what one means by "rich", I guess. :tongue_smilie:  I think the system is designed to allow the rich to get richer and keep the poor and middle class poorer.)

[amsunshine]

I think both of these things are true.  There's a balance.  The bank might say, "We will fund history majors, but they must have a decent chance of doing well in school, be studying at a school with a decent program, and maintain good grades, and given the current market for history majors, we will only allow them to borrow a max of $X."  The school, in turn, might say, "We know it's hard for history majors to get a job in their field, so we are changing up our program so that along with the history courses, students must minor in something that makes them more marketable, and we're changing to a co-op/internship model so that students have relevant work experience on their resume before graduation.  Also, we're scaling back our plans to build a fancy new dorm building, instead creating one that is less expensive to build and maintain."  The system would reward dedicated students and schools that keep the job market in mind.  

 

There will always be schools willing to take the money of wealthy students regardless of what they want to study.  

 

I do think this is a sensible.  But it won't happen unless the bankruptcy laws change.  Lenders won't be prudent about student loans unless they feel they need to be.  Schools won't change their tune unless lenders change theirs.

 

I want to move to England.

[JoJosMom]

This idea that only work that you feel passionate about is really important seriously bothers me - I mean, it makes me very angry.

 

I don't know who sold this idea to kids, that some kinds of work are just not worthwhile or are without dignity, or that their self-worth will come from fulfilling some kind of passion.

 

Not only is it just factually such self-centered bull-pucky, I think it makes people unhappy.  they think they are failures because the get jobs as electricians or doing office work instead of say, writing, or raising awareness about the situation in Tibet.  Their sense of self-validation comes from some kind of fulfillment of "who they really are" and they can't stand to find out that who they really are is an office clerk or hairdresser at a mid-range salon.

 

:iagree: And it's a serious problem.  Polls suggest that many people who took advantage of the extremely long extended benefits did just that-took advantage.  They deliberately passed up opportunities to work, because they believed the work offered to be unsatisfying. Which is a good reason to keep an eye open for a better job, but not a good reason to continue to live on the public's dime.  An article I read recently also referred to changing attitudes among young people about work; earning enough to support oneself and one's family takes a backseat to finding meaningful work.

[Laura Corin]

 

I want to move to England.

 

Just to make things clear: the financial system I described is for Scotland.  The interest rate is a higher in England (currently inflation plus 3%, I believe).  Education is a 'devolved' responsibility where Scotland makes its own decisions.  Fees are still low overall though: a maximum of £9,000 per year at present.

[amsunshine]

Just to make things clear: the financial system I described is for Scotland.  The interest rate is a bit higher in England.  Education is a 'devolved' responsibility where Scotland makes its own decisions.  Fees are still low overall though: a maximum of £9,000 per year at present.

 

Scotland, it is.

[Laura Corin]

Scotland, it is.

 

If you are a legal long-term Scottish resident and go to a Scottish university, there are no tuition fees, so you only have to borrow money to live.  Calvin didn't make that decision, but with the low-interest loans he got a good deal anyway.

[JoJosMom]

But, again, you are looking at the financial impact, not the societal impact (yes, I know finances impact society). 

 

Schools already offer the ability to get major/minor combinations much as what you are describing. A student can major in history and minor in management. Internships are common. It falls to the student to take advantage of the programs that are already available. 

 

You would be okay if our culture functions long term at the point where only the wealthy have access to the advanced study of history, art, literature and ideas? If so, then the wealthy will be the only ones who are participating in discussions, understanding the implications and promoting and/or discouraging applications for new discoveries/inventions. The general populace will not be educated enough to do this - it takes many voices, not just a few.

 

This is a good point, but I don't know that an expensive college degree is the only, or even the best, way to achieve this.  In fact, I think we're in the midst of shift in the way we are educated.  Thanks to the internet, almost everyone (in the developed world) has access to exactly what you mention here-in many cases for free. In a lot of ways, I think it's healthy; the Academy has become a very closed-off society and it's conversations very one-sided.  Removing the filter of the university between the information and the learner could turn out to be healthier for our society by allowing a greater diversity of opinion or thought.

[elegantlion]

Our family is made up of lifelong learners. In our home, we routinely read about and discuss a huge variety of topics. However, our influence is somewhat limited. What a "piece of paper" gets is a voice, a seat at the table. It is, as my husband sometimes says, a union card. Degrees validate knowledge. There are many fields that have impact on our culture where, in order to be taken seriously and in order to gain entry into the circles who have influence, one must be able to prove their knowledge. Computer science, psychology, biological research and medicine are all areas that have tremendous impact on our current society. 

 

:iagree: I am also a lifelong learner. I'm also a college sophomore in my late 40s. I can read all the history books I want, but without a degree I would never be considered a historian. Already I've found circles to get involved in that would not be open to individuals without degrees. The deeper you go into a topic, the harder it is to find specialists in those areas too. I'm considering grad school, but want to study a very narrow period of history. Those specialists are limited. 

 

I met with the head of my department yesterday and  we discussed the value of master's or PhD work for my area of interest. Return on investment was part of that conversation.

 

 

This is a good point, but I don't know that an expensive college degree is the only, or even the best, way to achieve this.  In fact, I think we're in the midst of shift in the way we are educated.  Thanks to the internet, almost everyone (in the developed world) has access to exactly what you mention here-in many cases for free. In a lot of ways, I think it's healthy; the Academy has become a very closed-off society and it's conversations very one-sided.  Removing the filter of the university between the information and the learner could turn out to be healthier for our society by allowing a greater diversity of opinion or thought.

 

I think there are a few issues at play. I love that I can look up literally anything online. I do think technology has changed the way we learn. My son has utilized the Internet in so many positive ways. 

 

I've ran into some perception issues at my university, thankfully not in my department. The perception being that knowledge must come from academia, that self-learning is somehow less valid or really not an option. I know all the self-education I undertook while homeschooling has made me a better student. 

 

The flip side is that my self-education is a solitary endeavor. Outside of the university level in my area, there are no groups meeting to discuss medieval history out of interest. The number of committed learners drops the deeper you get into a subject. There is no one to validate my learning, no one to ask if I have questions or even want to discuss these issues at an expert level. There is a lot of networking that I am now able to partake in. Without being an enrolled student, there is no way I could have time with the head of the department. Our 20 minute conversation yielded insider information that I cannot get from snooping around the Internet alone, like the quality of certain grad schools or considerations to make for choosing one. 

[creekland]

One other thought regarding degrees...  Many people consider themselves "experts" and undoubtedly a few are, but how many percentage-wise?

 

We can all point to those with a degree who don't appear to have the knowledge they should, but I'd take someone with a degree from a University regarding ____ over a self-proclaimed expert if hiring someone new to the field.  I'd consider their sentiments on the subject in mere conversation more too.

 

Take (deeper level) medical advice... is a self-proclaimed expert giving you just as good advice as a specialist in that field?  Maybe, but do you want to take that risk?

 

Why would History or Physics or ??? be any different?

 

The degree brings with it some affirmation. 

 

This is also why many hiring managers have favorite schools (not necessarily correlated with generic "Top" lists).  They've seen grads from X and know what to expect.  Y may be unknown to them, so why take the risk if you don't need to?

[TechWife]

I see what you are saying.  And that is the author's point, in a way.  Why should he get a job he despises just to pay back his loans when there is value and personal reward in what he is currently doing that doesn't pay the bills, apparently.

 

Unfortunately, the system we have today doesn't allow for getting an education just for the sake of a rich culture.  (Well, it depends on what one means by "rich", I guess. :tongue_smilie:  I think the system is designed to allow the rich to get richer and keep the poor and middle class poorer.)

 

No, actually, I think you might be missing my point. It isn't about the job, it's about the education. It's about "the great conversation." A clerk working at Walmart or  McDonald's can take part in the great conversation, but only if that clerk is educated. 

 

If the systems some are proposing, such as banks deciding the value of an education, and therefore the amount of loans granted, based upon the likelihood of the person being employed in their major field of study, then only the rich will be able to get degrees in fields that will lend breadth and depth to society. They will, in turn, be able to more fully partake in "the great conversation" than one who has a narrow degree or no degree at all. 

[amsunshine]

No, actually, I think you might be missing my point. It isn't about the job, it's about the education. It's about "the great conversation." A clerk working at Walmart or  McDonald's can take part in the great conversation, but only if that clerk is educated. 

 

If the systems some are proposing, such as banks deciding the value of an education, and therefore the amount of loans granted, based upon the likelihood of the person being employed in their major field of study, then only the rich will be able to get degrees in fields that will lend breadth and depth to society. They will, in turn, be able to more fully partake in "the great conversation" than one who has a narrow degree or no degree at all. 

 

No, I do get what you are saying, really I do!  But the system right now  is such that education today is too expensive to see it as something that is valuable just because it allows one to take part in the great conversation.  Student loans require that borrowers get a degree to get a job that is lucrative enough to pay those loans.  People on these boards are highly critical of an author who writes a piece about how he doesn't want to get that job to pay off those loans, but chooses to do something more fulfilling, less lucrative and to buck the system.  Education today is not about joining the great conversation.

 

The point about having banks assess the relative values of education is that it will hopefully bring change to this system such that the costs of education to the average student might not be at the level where it is today.  The goal is to, little by little, get education back to where a person can get that degree that adds richness to our culture without breaking that person financially and spiritually.

 

eta:  It's nice to think about how a person working at Walmart might be able to participate in the great conversation if that person is educated, but it's not realistic in terms of the cost of education today.  A person who wants to fulfill the moral obligation of paying off their student loans, by and large, can't choose to work at Walmart.

[TechWife]

This is a good point, but I don't know that an expensive college degree is the only, or even the best, way to achieve this.  In fact, I think we're in the midst of shift in the way we are educated.  Thanks to the internet, almost everyone (in the developed world) has access to exactly what you mention here-in many cases for free. In a lot of ways, I think it's healthy; the Academy has become a very closed-off society and it's conversations very one-sided.  Removing the filter of the university between the information and the learner could turn out to be healthier for our society by allowing a greater diversity of opinion or thought.

 

That will only work if those who are using the internet to learn are actually examining a variety of opinions and actively seeking out more information on various topics. Most only read things they know they will agree with (the studies that show this are out there, but I can't lay my fingers on them at the moment) and most people use the internet at home for recreational purposes, not educational. 

 

You are very correct in that the Academy is a closed off culture in many respects, but the Academy also won't get that diversity of thought if we no longer allow people to learn in that Academy. 

[TechWife]

No, I do get what you are saying, really I do!  But the system right now  is such that education today is too expensive to see it as something that is valuable just because it allows one to take part in the great conversation.  Student loans require that borrowers get a degree to get a job that is lucrative enough to pay those loans.  People on these boards are highly critical of an author who writes a piece about how he doesn't want to get that job to pay off those loans, but chooses to do something more fulfilling, less lucrative and to buck the system.  Education today is not about joining the great conversation.

 

The point about having banks assess the relative values of education is that it will hopefully bring change to this system such that the costs of education to the average student might not be the level where it is today.  The goal is to, little by little, get education back to where a person can get that degree that adds richness to our culture without breaking that person financially and spiritually.

 

I think it might be a chicken and the egg scenario, really. People have devalued education to the extent that they are putting  a price tag on it. X is worth learning, but Y is not. 

 

Not sure where I'm going with this, will have to ponder it. 

 

Perhaps an example might be of some help (mostly to me). A person majors in computer science, graduates and gets a lucrative job because there is a great demand for computer programmers. That person programs away, rises through the ranks and becomes more influential in the field. Now we have GPS devices that can track the location of individual people. The computer scientist sees the programming genius and the fact that they have delivered a product to a client. Someone who has studied literature or history and is working a much lower paying job and maybe not even one in their field of study, sees the implications of being able to track the locations of individual people, the good and the bad, and is able to effectively communicate their ideas to peers, to more influential people and to less influential people. Is the education of the literature or history major less valuable to society at that point? 

 

Maybe the issue is that education is largely intangible and by necessity, we are assigning a tangible value to it. 

 

All of this to say that I am deeply appalled at the fact that this man is not paying his student loans because he basically thought he was too valuable to "waste" his time working. 

[amsunshine]

All of this to say that I am deeply appalled at the fact that this man is not paying his student loans because he basically thought he was too valuable to "waste" his time working. 

 

But he is working.  He's just not getting one or more of the jobs that would allow him to pay off those loans.

 

I'm not defending him.  But here in the U.S., at least, education is not about education anymore.  It's about the business and moneymaking of education.  The poor and middle class are being squeezed.  The rich are getting richer.  I don't like it any more than you do.  I'm desperate for change.

[elegantlion]

The reality is that the average student loan amount, I think $27,000, is no more than an average new car.  Not that I've ever paid 27k for a car, but people do without question and loans are up to 7 years last time I checked. Which is going to last longer, a new car or the education you receive? 

 

Sure it's a gamble because if life turns upside down you're still on the hook for the education, the car you could give back. 

 

 

[elegantlion]

But he is working.  He's just not getting one or more of the jobs that would allow him to pay off those loans.

 

I'm not defending him.  But here in the U.S., at least, education is not about education anymore.  It's about the business and moneymaking of education.  The poor and middle class are being squeezed.  The rich are getting richer.  I don't like it any more than you do.  I'm desperate for change.

 

I don't know if it's this thread or the one on the chat board, but there is some discussion about his being self-employed. It's harder to garnish wages on the self-employed. There was also some discussion about how his assets are titled, such as in the wife's name, so it can't be seized. If so, he's (imo) playing games to skirt the law and while he might not care, it's still ethically questionable. 

 

I do think education needs a change, however, I don't think the sky if falling quite yet. Under the loud roar of all the high tuition schools and huge loan stories, there are plenty of students attending school, getting good educations for a fair price, and not incurring huge amounts of debt. I am the poor. I'm taking out loans, but my school also has specific scholarships for people in my exact situation. This allows me to not work while in school and truly focus on my studies. I have a minimal lifestyle and have to live further out in the country than I'd like. My loans will probably amount to a decent new car price, even at my age, I consider that a decent investment. I will continue to live a minimal lifestyle once I graduate regardless of if I pursue grad school or not. 

 

I think a conversation on top of the cost of education needs to be the cost of living for graduates. Rental costs are still high, car prices are high, and I haven't read up on consumer debt for a while. I talk a lot with my son about living a minimal life while paying off student loans, that may mean he doesn't buy a brand new car for a while or buy a house or he lives in a smaller home. You really can't have it all, but with prudent measures taken in and after college, I still believe a degree is a good investment. 

[justasque]

Actually, with dance, getting an apprenticeship with a company should usually come early, before college.  This is because as a dancer ages, his/her prospects of dancing professionally for any length of time decrease.  The conventional wisdom for dancers is that they can dance now, go to college later.  There are other advantages to this, as well, in terms of college aid.  For example, if a dancer is dancing for a company for a number of years, the status of being independent will help that student get better aid for college after he/she is done dancing professionally.

 

But I see what you are saying in terms of the value of a college degree, even for those in the arts.  I just wanted to point out that if one is serious about dancing in particular, and actually has the potential to dance for a professional company, college would typically be delayed (not necessarily eliminated).

 

 

But, again, you are looking at the financial impact, not the societal impact (yes, I know finances impact society). 

 

Schools already offer the ability to get major/minor combinations much as what you are describing. A student can major in history and minor in management. Internships are common. It falls to the student to take advantage of the programs that are already available. 

 

You would be okay if our culture functions long term at the point where only the wealthy have access to the advanced study of history, art, literature and ideas? If so, then the wealthy will be the only ones who are participating in discussions, understanding the implications and promoting and/or discouraging applications for new discoveries/inventions. The general populace will not be educated enough to do this - it takes many voices, not just a few.

But if they are $100K-$200K in debt (because they took out loans to attend a $65K/year school, and maybe even grad school too), can they realistically spend their time doing art, reading literature, thinking about the big ideas?  Or, because of their enormous debt burden, will they be stuck in a low-paying job, living paycheck-to-paycheck (and unable to finance their children's education, if they can even afford children)?  There is a point where even a low wage artsy job can let a graduate chip away at student debt, and there is a point where it is simply not feasible.  Ideally, there would be SOMEWHERE in the system where someone who had financial skin in the game (or perhaps just an impartial advising body) looked at the student's financial (and academic) picture before allowing/advising the student to take on (more) debt.

[Bootsie]

I think this is a great point, but the fact is that in the US, 13 years is not enough time because that time is not used well. In order to produce individuals who can read, write, compute and think, our current K-12 system would have to drastically change in both content and delivery. 

 

Time spent does not equate to quality. 

Sending these same students to the university for four years does not necessarily convert them to individuals who can read, write, compute, and think.  Universities were designed to provide further education for students who are already competent in those areas.  

[SKL]

You would be okay if our culture functions long term at the point where only the wealthy have access to the advanced study of history, art, literature and ideas? If so, then the wealthy will be the only ones who are participating in discussions, understanding the implications and promoting and/or discouraging applications for new discoveries/inventions. The general populace will not be educated enough to do this - it takes many voices, not just a few.

 

How much should it cost to provide this though?  Why is an expensive program better than an inexpensive one?  If the individual is interested in the subject matter, he is not limited to what happens in the classroom.  Even when I was in college, pre-internet, this was true.  How much more so today, with internet and many other improved library resources.

 

I agree with the poster who said:  where is all the money going?

 

[Bootsie]

But if they are $100K-$200K in debt (because they took out loans to attend a $65K/year school, and maybe even grad school too), can they realistically spend their time doing art, reading literature, thinking about the big ideas?  Or, because of their enormous debt burden, will they be stuck in a low-paying job, living paycheck-to-paycheck (and unable to finance their children's education, if they can even afford children)?  There is a point where even a low wage artsy job can let a graduate chip away at student debt, and there is a point where it is simply not feasible.  Ideally, there would be SOMEWHERE in the system where someone who had financial skin in the game (or perhaps just an impartial advising body) looked at the student's financial (and academic) picture before allowing/advising the student to take on (more) debt.

With a student loan, a student has "skin in the game."  If parents, or taxpayers, are paying all of the college expenses, the student does not have skin in the game.  So if the argument is that having financial skin in the game leads to better decisions about education, then it could be argued that student loans should actually encourage students to make better choices about their education.  

[SKL]

 

The flip side is that my self-education is a solitary endeavor. Outside of the university level in my area, there are no groups meeting to discuss medieval history out of interest. The number of committed learners drops the deeper you get into a subject. There is no one to validate my learning, no one to ask if I have questions or even want to discuss these issues at an expert level. There is a lot of networking that I am now able to partake in. Without being an enrolled student, there is no way I could have time with the head of the department. Our 20 minute conversation yielded insider information that I cannot get from snooping around the Internet alone, like the quality of certain grad schools or considerations to make for choosing one. 

 

But people could have these discussions outside of the university, couldn't they?  In fact, I would be surprised if there aren't internet boards to discuss these things, and folks could arrange meetings with like-minded individuals without paying tens of thousands to a university.

[SKL]

One other thought regarding degrees...  Many people consider themselves "experts" and undoubtedly a few are, but how many percentage-wise?

 

We can all point to those with a degree who don't appear to have the knowledge they should, but I'd take someone with a degree from a University regarding ____ over a self-proclaimed expert if hiring someone new to the field.  I'd consider their sentiments on the subject in mere conversation more too.

 

Take (deeper level) medical advice... is a self-proclaimed expert giving you just as good advice as a specialist in that field?  Maybe, but do you want to take that risk?

 

Why would History or Physics or ??? be any different?

 

The degree brings with it some affirmation. 

 

This is also why many hiring managers have favorite schools (not necessarily correlated with generic "Top" lists).  They've seen grads from X and know what to expect.  Y may be unknown to them, so why take the risk if you don't need to?

 

I think people are talking about an educated society in general, not whether or not doctors or architects should have a degree.  If specific course work is important to doing a job, then yes, the piece of paper matters.

[SKL]

No, actually, I think you might be missing my point. It isn't about the job, it's about the education. It's about "the great conversation." A clerk working at Walmart or  McDonald's can take part in the great conversation, but only if that clerk is educated.

 

Though there is something to be said for life experience over college studies, when it comes to "great conversations."  Especially the really important conversations that need to be had in a civilized country.

 

[amsunshine]

With a student loan, a student has "sink in the game."  If parents, or taxpayers, are paying all of the college expenses, the student does not have skin in the game.  So if the argument is that having financial skin in the game leads to better decisions about education, then it could be argued that student loans should actually encourage students to make better choices about their education.  

 

It could also be argued that the loans are less tangible to the student because they are to be paid off in the future, and most students are not realistic about their future abilities to pay off such loans.  If the cost of education was such that, a student could get a job and work to help pay for some or all of tuition (a scenario that used to be more common years ago and is less common today), students might make better choices about education because they are actively engaged in the process of paying for it right now.

[JoJosMom]

Though there is something to be said for life experience over college studies, when it comes to "great conversations."  Especially the really important conversations that need to be had in a civilized country.

 

 

I agree, except I would say, "There is MUCH to said for life experience..."

[Bootsie]

According to the US Department of Labor

 

"The official fiscal year 2011 three-year cohort default rate is 13.7 percent: 12.9 percent at public colleges, 7.2 percent at private colleges, and 19.1 percent at for-profit colleges."

 

Thus, default rates at public colleges greatly exceeds that of the more expensive private colleges.  

[amsunshine]

According to the US Department of Labor

 

"The official fiscal year 2011 three-year cohort default rate is 13.7 percent: 12.9 percent at public colleges, 7.2 percent at private colleges, and 19.1 percent at for-profit colleges."

 

Thus, default rates at public colleges greatly exceeds that of the more expensive private colleges.  

 

 

What is the difference between private colleges and "for profit" colleges?

[Reefgazer]

That was my post, in this thread.  I know it's harder to garnish wages of people who are self-employed.  But if self-employment brings in enough to file a tax return, then any refund or assets should be seize-able.  If the government knows his Social Security number (and presumably, they do), then seizing payment for free-lance articles or book royalties should be possible in this instant-information, computer driven age.  Seize the payment at the point of payment, perhaps?  I know this won't always work, especially when a person is paid in cash, but otherwise it should be possible.  The shame factor could be put to good use, also, by publically publishing the names of those in default on a yearly basis to encourage some to pony-up.  I suspect the short-term cost to do this makes it "not worth it", but the long term costs would make it worth it, IMO.

 

ETA:  I think one solution to paying back student loans might be to remove some of the punitive measures on people who are attempting to pay back their loans, but can't quite make the entire payment.  For example, if someone is paying at least _% of their payment toward their loan balance, hold off on putting them in default for an extended time.  I also like amsunshine's idea to pay back some of the tuition through current work; perhaps that could be credited toward future payments.

I don't know if it's this thread or the one on the chat board, but there is some discussion about his being self-employed. It's harder to garnish wages on the self-employed. There was also some discussion about how his assets are titled, such as in the wife's name, so it can't be seized. If so, he's (imo) playing games to skirt the law and while he might not care, it's still ethically questionable. 

 

I do think education needs a change, however, I don't think the sky if falling quite yet. Under the loud roar of all the high tuition schools and huge loan stories, there are plenty of students attending school, getting good educations for a fair price, and not incurring huge amounts of debt. I am the poor. I'm taking out loans, but my school also has specific scholarships for people in my exact situation. This allows me to not work while in school and truly focus on my studies. I have a minimal lifestyle and have to live further out in the country than I'd like. My loans will probably amount to a decent new car price, even at my age, I consider that a decent investment. I will continue to live a minimal lifestyle once I graduate regardless of if I pursue grad school or not. 

 

I think a conversation on top of the cost of education needs to be the cost of living for graduates. Rental costs are still high, car prices are high, and I haven't read up on consumer debt for a while. I talk a lot with my son about living a minimal life while paying off student loans, that may mean he doesn't buy a brand new car for a while or buy a house or he lives in a smaller home. You really can't have it all, but with prudent measures taken in and after college, I still believe a degree is a good investment. 

 

[Reefgazer]

I think student loans do promote deeper thought about just exactly what the student is getting into, unless the student goes into the game with the intent of scamming the public and never paying back their student loans.  A person on a grant may think deeply about costs and their future income, but there is not cost to them if they do not.  That's why I was very happy to see the tightening up of student grant rules a few summers ago - it helped to weed some of those people out.

With a student loan, a student has "skin in the game."  If parents, or taxpayers, are paying all of the college expenses, the student does not have skin in the game.  So if the argument is that having financial skin in the game leads to better decisions about education, then it could be argued that student loans should actually encourage students to make better choices about their education.  

 

[elegantlion]

But people could have these discussions outside of the university, couldn't they?  In fact, I would be surprised if there aren't internet boards to discuss these things, and folks could arrange meetings with like-minded individuals without paying tens of thousands to a university.

 

I stumbled upon a wonderful online group, so yes there are groups. If I just wanted to become well read and chat, it would be sufficient. Getting together might be problematic (or at least expensive) since the majority live in the UK. No one there is helping me become the "expert" or helping me find opportunities to write and present, so it doesn't align with my long-term goals. 

[Bootsie]

What is the difference between private colleges and "for profit" colleges?

A private college would be a non-state run college, but one that does not have shareholders who can earn a profit.  

[Sebastian (a lady)]

One last post, then I will let Mr. Siegel go off into benign neglect (as I do have other things I need to do).  

 

I ran into an earlier essay of his, in which he discusses the decline of humanities in colleges, and why he thinks that is a good thing.  I'm struggling to reconcile his attitude toward his studies in this article with what some of what he writes in the more recent one on defaulting on his loans.  Or perhaps it is partly his frustration with the degrees themselves that lead him to thinking that not paying back the loans for the time he was in school is acceptable.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578595803296798048

 

I do think that repayments of the costs of education should be manageable.  But I think that would be the consequence of several things:

-Students not betraying their future selves by taking on loans without regard to the effect it will have on them long term.

-Good explanations of the terms of a loan including future monthly payments and total amount of repayment.  (I didn't have a student loan, so I can't say how clearly this is described or was described in the past.)

-Some kinds of qualifications for large loans such that immense sums of money are not loaned to marginal students who are studying fields in which they have little prospect of repayment.  That might mean that higher test scores garner better loan terms.  It might mean that certain fields of study are harder to get loans for.  

-Reconsidering which types of jobs actually require a 4 year degree and which can be professionally done with some kind of a certificate that takes less time, is focused on the certification content, and costs less.  

-The value of a high school diploma needs to be higher.  My dad graduated in the 1960s with a standard high school diploma.  That, a couple years in the Navy and a bit of time at a vocational institute prepared him for a career in manufacturing.  He has managed small production plants ranging from wood products to packaging to chemicals.  He did early computing, accounting for the plant, redesigned production lines, trouble shot temperamental chemical mixing equipment, brought facilities into ISO compliance, led teams of people, and oversaw safety programs.  He stayed on at his last company for several years after he planned to retire, because they kept hiring college grads to replace him who didn't last through the training stage.  

 

It's really only been two generations since the rural high school my dad attended was able to prepare people. There is much to do, but I don't think it is impossible, if people want to have that kind of education.  (It is questionable if they do want it or not.)

[Bootsie]

One of the problems that causes the student lending to be less efficient, at a market level, than other types of lending, is that lenders have no collateral.  If a student says "I want a loan to major in engineering" and the bank makes a loan, but then the student goes to school and changes to underwater basketweaving as a major, the bank cannot repossess the degree.  If I go to school for three years, taking out loans, and then decide to quit, the bank can't repossess my degree.  Even if I major in a field that is associated with a high-paying industry, there is no guarantee that I will choose to work, or that I will choose to work in that industry.  That makes student lending (without a govt guarantee) extremely risky.

[justasque]

According to the US Department of Labor

 

"The official fiscal year 2011 three-year cohort default rate is 13.7 percent: 12.9 percent at public colleges, 7.2 percent at private colleges, and 19.1 percent at for-profit colleges."

 

Thus, default rates at public colleges greatly exceeds that of the more expensive private colleges.  

Which leads me to wonder if the average loan amount is the same at all three institution types?  

And whether these stats are for just the federally subsidized loans to the student, or whether they include other educational loans like the private, bank-based loans which may be taken out in the parents' names?  (Not sure if I have the right language or description for those two categories?)

[creekland]

I do think education needs a change, however, I don't think the sky if falling quite yet. Under the loud roar of all the high tuition schools and huge loan stories, there are plenty of students attending school, getting good educations for a fair price, and not incurring huge amounts of debt. I am the poor. I'm taking out loans, but my school also has specific scholarships for people in my exact situation. This allows me to not work while in school and truly focus on my studies. I have a minimal lifestyle and have to live further out in the country than I'd like. My loans will probably amount to a decent new car price, even at my age, I consider that a decent investment. I will continue to live a minimal lifestyle once I graduate regardless of if I pursue grad school or not. 

 

I think a conversation on top of the cost of education needs to be the cost of living for graduates. Rental costs are still high, car prices are high, and I haven't read up on consumer debt for a while. I talk a lot with my son about living a minimal life while paying off student loans, that may mean he doesn't buy a brand new car for a while or buy a house or he lives in a smaller home. You really can't have it all, but with prudent measures taken in and after college, I still believe a degree is a good investment. 

 

All I can add is hubby and I wouldn't be where we are now if we (specifically he as mine was almost totally scholarship) hadn't taken on student loans in the 5 digits.  It was worth paying them off in 5 years and we've been reaping the benefits ever since.

 

I think people are talking about an educated society in general, not whether or not doctors or architects should have a degree.  If specific course work is important to doing a job, then yes, the piece of paper matters.

 

I would still consider the Historian to have more knowledge about their field with a degree than without, unless there were extensive job experience already.

 

What shouldn't be required are degrees "just because" where the degree isn't needed.  Why would a secretary need a degree - or a flight attendant?  I know the argument is due to our public schools not producing graduates who can think or perform duties and HR prefers those with degrees, but still...

 

FWIW, many food factories around here are hiring college students for the summer.  One would think they'd prefer full time "others" who weren't leaving soon for college.  I've yet to figure out if they're hoping to get these students as full timers if they drop out, if they are so desperate for summer work overall, or if they simply prefer the mindset of those who move on toward college.

 

What is the difference between private colleges and "for profit" colleges?

 

The majority of private colleges are "Non-Profit" entities.  No one earns money off their bottom line simply from owning stock.  For profits are like any other company paying their shareholders.  IME they tend to be the worst at conning students into taking out large loans to attend.  At the school where I work, they go into our lower level classes and promise the world to kids IF ONLY they attend their program.  They never mention actual costs.  They just say they have financing options so no one is turned away over money.  Their success stories aren't necessarily local, but are cherry picked students across the nation.  It's annoying to say the least.