NPR story on student loans

[Dahobbs 17498]

15 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Further the latest data set I could find estimated roughly 10mm community college students in 2018. The "student persistence" rate meaning, continuing with education (for those not graduating) at any higher education was 62.1% (and 54% returned to the same school).

That means ~38% were either taking a break or dropping out.

Of course dahobbs was nice enough to show the median cost of a community college, but further investigation reveals the loan amounts to be much higher (due to taking out more to pay for housing, food, etc. as I suggested):

 

 

So if you took a swag worst case scenario and said, only 50% of the 38% dropped out to never get a degree and you know the data means that 60% of those who dropout within the first two years with less 15 hours and don't earn a degree is 60% and just take 30% of that to be safe:

18% of 10mm = 1.9mm

1.9mm * $12,320= $23,408,000,000 (and that is assuming only 1 year when a handful would also have more debt from another year).

And this is just a back of the napkin exercise to maybe challenge what people like brisket or dahobb won't entertain or think is a significant enough issue, because community college is viewed as cheap. Imagine when adding the real culprits who charge 3x-4x and students drop out, like the for-profit and other schools who will take unprepared warm bodies for the tuition.

I have no idea why you are making up random numbers for unrelated issues (e.g., drop out rate and "persistence"). Go back and actually look at the article you posted. Only 17% of community college students in that group took out federally backed loans (I assume a much smaller portion may have received private loans). Of those that took out loans, maybe 30% went into default (it was 20% after 3 years of repayment). So, your napkin number above is wildly inflated. It isn't 18% of 10 million students. It is 5% (17% with loans x 30% default rate), or 510,000 students.

Compare that to the number of students at four-year and graduate programs with loans (north of 50% of them based on your article). And consider that those loans are many times higher on average than the community college college loans. Your focus on community college is horribly misplaced. 

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

 

 

[Eastwood 4394]

1 hour ago, Randolph Duke said:

The other side of the morality filter has to be the irresponsibility of lenders making federally guaranteed loans to with no reason whatsoever to believe the loans could ever be repaid.

 

Sounds like a situation from the not so distant past. Those people got a bailout, though...

[DonkeyCigars 144]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I have no idea why you are making up random numbers for unrelated issues (e.g., drop out rate and "persistence"). Go back and actually look at the article you posted. Only 17% of community college students in that group took out federally backed loans (I assume a much smaller portion may have received private loans). Of those that took out loans, maybe 30% went into default (it was 20% after 3 years of repayment). So, your napkin number above is wildly inflated. It isn't 18% of 10 million students. It is 5% (17% with loans x 30% default rate), or 510,000 students.

Compare that to the number of students at four-year and graduate programs with loans (north of 50% of them based on your article). And consider that those loans are many times higher on average than the community college college loans. Your focus on community college is horribly misplaced. 

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

 

 

Firstly, in response to the random number comments, I took numbers directly from the link I provided which was one of many of the studies and websites double-clicking into a growing student loan/debt crisis with community colleges. I swagged some calculations on the back of a napkin based off of (what i thought were conservative) assumptions made in 5 minutes, in an effort to further a discussion and point of view that was immediately dismissed and ridiculed by yourself and brisket without any input. I thank you for at least trying to dig in the last few responses, but I think we aren't aligned on what my point was and what I was trying to say versus what you think I was saying.

Which leads to my next point, my focus isn't even on community college in my original thesis. Community college was part and parcel of the problem, but it wasn't even the biggest rock-- that is reserved for the for-profit, private schools that are horribly indiscriminate and take poor, first generation kids woefully unprepared to do college level work and saddle them with debt and then leave them hung out to dry.

Community college has it's place in the higher education ecosystem, I just think that they too contribute to a high degree (no pun intended) to the problem of student loan debt-without-a-degree-to-show-for-it problem which is a very strong indicator of not being able or not being willing to pay your debts, which lead to defaults. That's it. I'm not trying to die on a hill in opposition of these schools and saying that community colleges are horrible or the worst or anything like that. Sorry for offending your sensibilities, if I have done that.

Ultimately for me I think this exercise in attempting to have a discourse around this issue is enlightening. Like everything else in 2020, there seems to be a lack of imagination and/or patience with an ideation process that involves thinking through various aspects of the problem, it feels like it's a "Do this [extreme thing] and do it now or else you are part of the problem!" world we live in. Any attempts at being measured or critical or reasoned is viewed as obstructive, dragging your feet on purpose to hurt others and maybe that is natural and fair and the right way to think. People are frustrated and seem to be ready for intense, structural change and the tolerance for the time it takes to move on these things is squarely in the "poop or get off the pot" realm. That's interesting if that is indeed the case and I'm curious to see how this sense of urgency plays out.

[Dahobbs 17498]

19 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Firstly, in response to the random number comments, I took numbers directly from the link I provided which was one of many of the studies and websites double-clicking into a growing student loan/debt crisis with community colleges. I swagged some calculations on the back of a napkin based off of (what i thought were conservative) assumptions made in 5 minutes, in an effort to further a discussion and point of view that was immediately dismissed and ridiculed by yourself and brisket without any input. I thank you for at least trying to dig in the last few responses, but I think we aren't aligned on what my point was and what I was trying to say versus what you think I was saying.

Which leads to my next point, my focus isn't even on community college in my original thesis. Community college was part and parcel of the problem, but it wasn't even the biggest rock-- that is reserved for the for-profit, private schools that are horribly indiscriminate and take poor, first generation kids woefully unprepared to do college level work and saddle them with debt and then leave them hung out to dry.

Community college has it's place in the higher education ecosystem, I just think that they too contribute to a high degree (no pun intended) to the problem of student loan debt-without-a-degree-to-show-for-it problem which is a very strong indicator of not being able or not being willing to pay your debts, which lead to defaults. That's it. I'm not trying to die on a hill in opposition of these schools and saying that community colleges are horrible or the worst or anything like that. Sorry for offending your sensibilities, if I have done that.

Ultimately for me I think this exercise in attempting to have a discourse around this issue is enlightening. Like everything else in 2020, there seems to be a lack of imagination and/or patience with an ideation process that involves thinking through various aspects of the problem, it feels like it's a "Do this [extreme thing] and do it now or else you are part of the problem!" world we live in. Any attempts at being measured or critical or reasoned is viewed as obstructive, dragging your feet on purpose to hurt others and maybe that is natural and fair and the right way to think. People are frustrated and seem to be ready for intense, structural change and the tolerance for the time it takes to move on these things is squarely in the "poop or get off the pot" realm. That's interesting if that is indeed the case and I'm curious to see how this sense of urgency plays out.

Your numbers had no relation to the value you were trying to calculate (amount of debt defaulted on). I honestly have no idea what your calculation is supposed to represent. It is literally a random number. Yes, you multiplied things. But I have no idea why you multiplied those things. 

You put a lot of words down and try to back up your conclusions with data. But, when examined, your data is non-existent, your process is flawed, and your conclusions are actually just your assumptions. I have no problem with honest attempts to think things out. I do have a problem when that attempt is mere subterfuge for the refusal to do anything.  And, frankly, it isn't even clear what your thesis is. So, maybe I'd ask you this, write down in one or two sentence what you're actually trying to say in this thread. 

[Brisketexan 104800]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your numbers had no relation to the value you were trying to calculate (amount of debt defaulted on). I honestly have no idea what your calculation is supposed to represent. It is literally a random number. Yes, you multiplied things. But I have no idea why you multiplied those things. 

You put a lot of words down and try to back up your conclusions with data. But, when examined, your data is non-existent, your process is flawed, and your conclusions are actually just your assumptions. I have no problem with honest attempts to think things out. I do have a problem when that attempt is mere subterfuge for the refusal to do anything.  And, frankly, it isn't even clear what your thesis is. So, maybe I'd ask you this, write down in one or two sentence what you're actually trying to say in this thread. 

This.  Well-stated.  What's your thesis, and then, what is your DATA to support it?  Because the calculations you posted are worse than meaningless -- they are demonstrably and wildly false.

Community colleges aren't a material part of the problem here (student debt load being crushing).  They just aren't.  Sure, there's some CC-related debt as part of the overall debt load, but it's a very minor part.  Focus on CCs is absurd.  Like any problem, focus on the biggest chunks first.

[horn4life 3758]

You can lay nearly the entirety of the Student Loan crisis at the feat of the GOP.  All you need do is look as the massive reductions PER CAPITA that the GOP instituted at the state level.  Texas is a great example.  I forget how many years ago they froze the funding.  Didn't CUT the funding, just kept it at a level that was unsustainable for the schools to operate.  This would not affect anyone but poor and middle class people, as the cost burden shifted from what previously was an investment in the future of a states young people, into a financial burden on the future of the same young people who previously were deemed worth of investing in.

This is the underlying problem in a nutshell.

[Brisketexan 104800]

Just now, horn4life said:

You can lay nearly the entirety of the Student Loan crisis at the feat of the GOP.  All you need do is look as the massive reductions PER CAPITA that the GOP instituted at the state level.  Texas is a great example.  I forget how many years ago they froze the funding.  Didn't CUT the funding, just kept it at a level that was unsustainable for the schools to operate.  This would not affect anyone but poor and middle class people, as the cost burden shifted from what previously was an investment in the future of a states young people, into a financial burden on the future of the same young people who previously were deemed worth of investing in.

This is the underlying problem in a nutshell.

As much as the GOP sucks on this issue -- and what you state is CORRECT -- it's not complete.  First, they freeze funding, then, they offer everyone a "compromise" of greatly expanded student loans -- "see, we still want kids to be able to afford to go to college!"  And with that 1-2 punch of freezing funding and then opening the money supply of tuition dollars, they made massive cost inflation (and resulting debt inflation) inevitable.

[horn4life 3758]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As much as the GOP sucks on this issue -- and what you state is CORRECT -- it's not complete.  First, they freeze funding, then, they offer everyone a "compromise" of greatly expanded student loans -- "see, we still want kids to be able to afford to go to college!"  And with that 1-2 punch of freezing funding and then opening the money supply of tuition dollars, they made massive cost inflation (and resulting debt inflation) inevitable.

Oh that is absolutely the other side of the coin. Guaranteed money for banks, massive mortgaging of the future of our young people.  Students should be able to work hard all summer, have a part time job during school and a job over Christmas break and be able to go to school and accumulate only a few thousand dollars of debt a year.  We could directly loan the money to the kids rather than using banks as middle men FOR NO FUCKING REASON to screw over our children.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

37 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your numbers had no relation to the value you were trying to calculate (amount of debt defaulted on). I honestly have no idea what your calculation is supposed to represent. It is literally a random number. Yes, you multiplied things. But I have no idea why you multiplied those things. 

You put a lot of words down and try to back up your conclusions with data. But, when examined, your data is non-existent, your process is flawed, and your conclusions are actually just your assumptions. I have no problem with honest attempts to think things out. I do have a problem when that attempt is mere subterfuge for the refusal to do anything.  And, frankly, it isn't even clear what your thesis is. So, maybe I'd ask you this, write down in one or two sentence what you're actually trying to say in this thread. 

I think that's a great approach, here is my attempt at the problem statement and reframe of the argument: Ultimately, my position is that a crushing amount of debt is relative to the ability to service it. $100k of debt isn't horrible when you've taken that loan to become a petroleum engineer or dentist or something with a line of sight to service the debt. $10k is worse, when you've taken it to the local clown college and dropped out after 12 hours of C's and you go back to working at the Jiffy Lube.

To dive deeper:

The one thing we can all agree on is student loan debt is out of control and the current way of engaging with higher education and student loans is untenable and needs to be changed. One of the most visible and painful unintentional effects from the last few decades of the higher-ed/student loan process is not only the sheer volume of student loan debt outstanding, but the ability to service that debt.

Research has shown that the biggest indicator for the ability (or willingness) to service debt taken on for school is if a degree is earned or not. Beyond allowing student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy, the lowest hanging fruit to help those first generation, overwhelmingly poor/middle-class, and average-to-below-average in preparedness to do collegiate level work, is to investigate and find out the following: which classification of higher education schools have the highest loan-to-graduation-failure rate, both per capita and per dollar? What is the dollar amount nominally and the percentage in contrast to the overall pie of student loan debt that is defined as this bad debt (aka debt being taken on in good faith but by ignorance and being sunk into these schools to fund their existence).

If it's overwhelmingly for-profit and junior colleges (e.g. schools with more predatory and misleading marketing/lending practices or low thresholds to entry, respectively) then what controls can be put in place to limit the amount of bad debt?

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 104800]

Just now, horn4life said:

Oh that is absolutely the other side of the coin. Guaranteed money for banks, massive mortgaging of the future of our young people.  Students should be able to work hard all summer, have a part time job during school and a job over Christmas break and be able to go to school and accumulate only a few thousand dollars of debt a year.  We could directly loan the money to the kids rather than using banks as middle men FOR NO FUCKING REASON to screw over our children.

That's the benchmark I have looked at all along.

To attend a state university -- tuition, room, and board -- a student USED to be able to cover that working an average low-wage job (think waiter, barista, etc.) for 26 hours a week during the year and full time during the summer.  Today, that student would have to work 59 hours a week year-round (so, impossible to do that AND go to school).

I had many peers do just that -- work hard, and put themselves through school.  Their counterparts today can't do that.

Tuition costs have vastly outpaced inflation.  That's a huge problem, caused by the factors I noted above.  We broke our higher ed system.

[wildcat09 29308]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As much as the GOP sucks on this issue -- and what you state is CORRECT -- it's not complete.  First, they freeze funding, then, they offer everyone a "compromise" of greatly expanded student loans -- "see, we still want kids to be able to afford to go to college!"  And with that 1-2 punch of freezing funding and then opening the money supply of tuition dollars, they made massive cost inflation (and resulting debt inflation) inevitable.

What's the one common lesson we've learned from the entirety of the past 30+ years of American politics?

Never fucking compromise with Republicans.

[Brisketexan 104800]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think that's a great approach, here is my attempt at the problem statement and reframe of the argument:

The one thing we can all agree on is student loan debt is out of control and the current way of engaging with higher education and student loans is untenable and needs to be changed. One of the most visible and painful unintentional effects from the last few decades of the higher-ed/student loan process is not only the sheer volume of student loan debt outstanding, but the ability to service that debt.

Research has shown that the biggest indicator for the ability (or willingness) to service debt taken on for school is if a degree is earned or not. Beyond allowing student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy, the lowest hanging fruit to help those first generation, overwhelmingly poor/middle-class, and average-to-below-average in preparedness to do collegiate level work, is to investigate and find out the following: which classification of higher education schools have the highest loan-to-graduation-failure rate, both per capita and per dollar? What is the dollar amount nominally and the percentage in contrast to the overall pie of student loan debt that is defined as this bad debt (aka debt being taken on in good faith but by ignorance and being sunk into these schools to fund their existence).

If it's overwhelmingly for-profit and junior colleges (e.g. schools with more predatory and misleading marketing/lending practices or low thresholds to entry, respectively) then what controls can be put in place to limit the amount of bad debt?

Dude.

Most folks don't have a problem servicing the debt of a $12k car note.

They DO have a problem servicing $80k in student debt.

The primary driver IS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT.  What's primarily killing folks isn't whether or not they get a degree - EVEN FOLKS WITH A DEGREE are being pummeled by servicing $80k+ in debt.

Lower the amount of debt on an individual basis, and the debt-service problem shrinks a metric shitton.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude.

Most folks don't have a problem servicing the debt of a $12k car note.

They DO have a problem servicing $80k in student debt.

The primary driver IS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT.  What's primarily killing folks isn't whether or not they get a degree - EVEN FOLKS WITH A DEGREE are being pummeled by servicing $80k+ in debt.

Lower the amount of debt on an individual basis, and the debt-service problem shrinks a metric shitton.

I disagree. I completely disagree. I think the investment, or whether you should take out massive amount of debt to fund an education, should be viewed as good or bad based off of the payback period and general ROI. That means debt is relative. $100k to get a law degree (e.g. a line of sight to an income that easily can service the debt) versus $10k to get C's and leave with 18 hours at a local school (x a million); what is the bigger strain on the system? 

I think your argument might lie more in the middle; the millions of folks who get a basic degree in basic/general topics and aren't qualified for much more than a 55k job. In that case I'm not sure what you do? Do you have a purity test for whether you can take out loans and get a degree of unproven or low probable value? Maybe that gets into the underwriting of a loan, etc. which would disproportionately hurt those from poor/middle class school districts who aren't on the accountant-track coming out of high school.

Edited November 19, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 104800]

12 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I disagree. I completely disagree. I think the investment, or whether you should take out massive amount of debt to fund an education, should be viewed as good or bad based off of the payback period and general ROI. That means debt is relative. $100k to get a law degree (e.g. a line of sight to an income that easily can service the debt) versus $10k to get C's and leave with 18 hours at a local school (x a million); what is the bigger strain on the system? 

I think your argument might lie more in the middle; the millions of folks who get a basic degree in basic/general topics and aren't qualified for much more than a 55k job. In that case I'm not sure what you do? Do you have a purity test for whether you can take out loans and get a degree of unproven or low probable value? Maybe that gets into the underwriting of a loan, etc. which would disproportionately hurt those from poor/middle class school districts who aren't on the accountant-track coming out of high school.

The fucking problem is the BASELINE.  UT tuition is the functionally the same whether you get a degree in German, or an engineering degree.  BOTH WERE AFFORDABLE, FOR DECADES.  

A higher ed degree is not just an economic tool.  We need and educated society with adults capable of critical thinking, and capable of working a broad range of careers (like one that's low-paying -- teaching).

And yeah, that law degree with $100k in debt?  STILL a strain on the system.  Why?  First, most law school grads are NOT huge earners (seriously, the $500k a year income is only for a small fraction of attorneys).  And even for those with a decent income stream, servicing that debt dramatically depresses their purchasing power for a decade or more.  That is bad for the economy.

And yeah, law school tuition had a similar inflation.  You used to be able to work your way through a state law school with minimal debt.  Not anymore.

[BradInATX 9208]

Liberals Arts Majors are on the Mount Rushmore of otherwise insignificant things that are Republican boogeyman talking point MVPs, right next to welfare queens loading their food stamp groceries into their escalades.

Edited November 19, 2020 by BradInATX

[wildcat09 29308]

I'm starting to understand the Bolsheviks.

This widespread idea that an education should be a financial investment by a student and not our common investment in all students is a cancer on America. Republicans have literally no expectations of responsible or moral behavior for anyone with any money or power in society but want to demand that a 17 year old perfectly plan out their entire future and if they fuck it up or change their mind (or if, more likely, the GOP and its friends nuke the entire economy through their negligence and/or malfeasance), well tough shit.

This is the kind of attitude and behavior that eventually leads to heads on pikes. The selfishness is truly incredible and they don't even grasp how horrible they're being to tens of millions of Americans. It's a great example of the banality of evil.

[mycox 582]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The primary driver IS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT.  What's primarily killing folks isn't whether or not they get a degree - EVEN FOLKS WITH A DEGREE are being pummeled by servicing $80k+ in debt.

Lower the amount of debt on an individual basis, and the debt-service problem shrinks a metric shitton.

Interest rates. How the hell is a student going to pay off a $80k loan with an 7% interest rate.

[Bevo 13534]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude.

Most folks don't have a problem servicing the debt of a $12k car note.

They DO have a problem servicing $80k in student debt.

The primary driver IS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT.  What's primarily killing folks isn't whether or not they get a degree - EVEN FOLKS WITH A DEGREE are being pummeled by servicing $80k+ in debt.

Lower the amount of debt on an individual basis, and the debt-service problem shrinks a metric shitton.

I partly agree with this. There is a limit to the amount of debt that can be serviced. Only a portion of that is the principal, however. I could pay 1% on a $500K loan forever. That's $5K per year or $415 per month or about the same as a car payment. At 10% that is $4150 per month or about the payment on a million dollar home. So the person is forced to do income based repayment and the principal continues to grow.

[TexasBeta 1261]

1 hour ago, mycox said:

Interest rates. How the hell is a student going to pay off a $80k loan with an 7% interest rate.

That's the killer.. If it is a government loan (thanks Obama) then they can convert them to no interest and make it a little easier to pay off. I'm against wholesale forgiveness. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The fucking problem is the BASELINE.  UT tuition is the functionally the same whether you get a degree in German, or an engineering degree.  BOTH WERE AFFORDABLE, FOR DECADES.  

A higher ed degree is not just an economic tool.  We need and educated society with adults capable of critical thinking, and capable of working a broad range of careers (like one that's low-paying -- teaching).

And yeah, that law degree with $100k in debt?  STILL a strain on the system.  Why?  First, most law school grads are NOT huge earners (seriously, the $500k a year income is only for a small fraction of attorneys).  And even for those with a decent income stream, servicing that debt dramatically depresses their purchasing power for a decade or more.  That is bad for the economy.

And yeah, law school tuition had a similar inflation.  You used to be able to work your way through a state law school with minimal debt.  Not anymore.

I think i see the problem here and it's fundamentally is a good, college education at an affordable price a right or a privilege. I mentioned this on another thread exactly verbatim on another thread, and no offense to all the "Back then the University cost 3 farthings and a six pence or half a dozen bales of hay depending on the harvest", but we aren't talking about apples and oranges. Heck even when I went to UT-- at a much, much higher rate of tuition then I hear some wizened folks (like you Brisket, probably) talk about it-- she was just starting to hint at what would become her stride years later as an academically and as a national, nay, global reputation.

UT these days is a premium priced school for premium students of great ability. I think it should be priced accordingly. Just read the thread talking about our sons and daughters and their immaculate pedigrees and applications and the struggle to get in and get situated. 80% of us couldn't sniff a wait-list these days and would have been relegated to the Rawlings School of Business or whatever TTU calls it's little program, so let's not sit here and act like we are owed a cheap education from a premiere institution as a birth right. If you want working-class, work a full time job and still get a degree, go to Colin County College or Stephen F. Austin or Udemy or some sort of trade school or certification program, something like that because I definitely agree with you with this one point "We need and educated society with adults capable of critical thinking, and capable of working a broad range of careers (like one that's low-paying -- teaching)". That is where community colleges come into play. Which is why I was looking at them first as a target for reform with student loan and drop-out rates-per-loans.

Edited November 19, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 104800]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

If you want working-class, work a full time job and still get a degree, go to Colin County College or Stephen F. Austin or Udemy or some sort of trade school or certification program,

Ummm.....hate to break it to you....but the cost of attendance to Stephen F. is just about as much as UT Austin.  And most "trade schools" are even worse.  Community College is the last refuge of affordable higher learning.

Thus, the problem.  If we've created a system where people need to go $50k in debt to get a degree from Stephen F.....

[Dahobbs 17498]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think i see the problem here and it's fundamentally is a good, college education at an affordable price a right or a privilege. I mentioned this on another thread exactly verbatim on another thread, and no offense to all the "Back then the University cost 3 farthings and a six pence or half a dozen bales of hay depending on the harvest", but we aren't talking about apples and oranges. Heck even when I went to UT-- at a much, much higher rate of tuition then I hear some wizened folks (like you Brisket, probably) talk about it-- she was just starting to hint at what would become her stride years later as an academically and as a national, nay, global reputation.

UT these days is a premium priced school for premium students of great ability. I think it should be priced accordingly. Just read the thread talking about our sons and daughters and their immaculate pedigrees and applications and the struggle to get in and get situated. 80% of us couldn't sniff a wait-list these days and would have been relegated to the Rawlings School of Business or whatever TTU calls it's little program, so let's not sit here and act like we are owed a cheap education from a premiere institution as a birth right. If you want working-class, work a full time job and still get a degree, go to Colin County College or Stephen F. Austin or Udemy or some sort of trade school or certification program, something like that because I definitely agree with you with this one point "We need and educated society with adults capable of critical thinking, and capable of working a broad range of careers (like one that's low-paying -- teaching)". That is where community colleges come into play. Which is why I was looking at them first as a target for reform with student loan and drop-out rates-per-loans.

More is sometimes less. Try being concise. For example, look at this sentence "Heck even when I went to UT-- at a much, much higher rate of tuition then I hear some wizened folks (like you Brisket, probably) talk about it-- she was just starting to hint at what would become her stride years later as an academically and as a national, nay, global reputation." 

Simplify. 

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm.....hate to break it to you....but the cost of attendance to Stephen F. is just about as much as UT Austin.  And most "trade schools" are even worse.  Community College is the last refuge of affordable higher learning.

Thus, the problem.  If we've created a system where people need to go $50k in debt to get a degree from Stephen F.....

Correct. The problem isn't that UT costs more. It is that all colleges cost more, a lot more, even after adjusting for inflation. Premium colleges: more expensive. Lower ranked colleges: more expensive. All of them are out of whack with rise in median income. 

Example, here is historical tuition for Harvard: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-cost-of-harvard-has-changed-throughout-the-years2019-6#starting-in-the-80s-harvards-costs-have-steadily-been-on-the-incline-in-1985-harvards-tuition-was-9500-7

And here is an inflation calculator:  https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/ (or use this one https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

Go ahead, input any years tuition into the calculator and see what the equivalent is today.  The adjusted historical price is a fraction of the current price. 

1985 - $9,500. Adjusted value: $22,989.65. Actual cost today, $51,904 (https://www.gse.harvard.edu/financialaid/tuition)

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

More is sometimes less. Try being concise. For example, look at this sentence "Heck even when I went to UT-- at a much, much higher rate of tuition then I hear some wizened folks (like you Brisket, probably) talk about it-- she was just starting to hint at what would become her stride years later as an academically and as a national, nay, global reputation." 

Simplify. 

Correct. The problem isn't that UT costs more. It is that all colleges cost more, a lot more, even after adjusting for inflation. Premium colleges: more expensive. Lower ranked colleges: more expensive. All of them are out of whack with rise in median income. 

Example, here is historical tuition for Harvard: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-cost-of-harvard-has-changed-throughout-the-years2019-6#starting-in-the-80s-harvards-costs-have-steadily-been-on-the-incline-in-1985-harvards-tuition-was-9500-7

And here is an inflation calculator:  https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/ (or use this one https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

Go ahead, input any years tuition into the calculator and see what the equivalent is today.  The adjusted historical price is a fraction of the current price. 

1985 - $9,500. Adjusted value: $22,989.65. Actual cost today, $51,904 (https://www.gse.harvard.edu/financialaid/tuition)

 

Good input and thanks for the feedback-- see? I'm coachable!

Building off your and Brisket's point, which I think is great contribution to the discussion by the way, what then is the fix? Everyone seemingly agrees there is a place for a premium, inelastic product in the higher ed space but the problem seems to be that there are not substitutes or inferior products at substitute or inferior product prices (they too demand a premium inelastic price, despite being elastic).

Seems like fundamentally an economic problem, which is why I couched it in those terms, but what to do about it other than wipe out the existing debt? That will do nothing if that is all we do. That's the epitome of treating the symptoms and not the disease.

In my mind the problem is no different than the housing problem: Similarly to higher education, the market for homes is too high for home ownership and even starter homes that are pieces of crap built in the 1970's are out of reach and priced too high for the lower income glut that makes up the bottom 50% of America (or whatever the percentage is, just using a halves marker here).

Do we fundamentally view a college degree and home ownership differently? As a right, a privilege or otherwise? I don't see many people clamoring for mortgage forgiveness because my jumbo elevator 30 year note on a house I couldn't afford is too much to service. Unlike student loans you can short-sell or foreclose, etc. which I think we should allow for those mechanisms (like bankruptcy discharging as well, I've said over and over).

 

[Brisketexan 104800]

Here's something real simple -- available loan dollars drive tuition pricing, to some extent.  So, cap the max loan dollars, and build in requirements as to what kind of tuition they can be spent on.

Hey, University of Big Thoughts, you want to get more students who are funded by loan dollars?  Best build your tuition setup so you qualify.  Otherwise, you're not gonna get any of that money.

[formermav43 4606]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

More is sometimes less. Try being concise. For example, look at this sentence "Heck even when I went to UT-- at a much, much higher rate of tuition then I hear some wizened folks (like you Brisket, probably) talk about it-- she was just starting to hint at what would become her stride years later as an academically and as a national, nay, global reputation." 

Simplify. 

Come on, now. It’s one thing to point out the flaws in his reasoning. But if you’re going to critique verbosity, it seems rather, ahem, stochastic to start here.

[Huckleberry 32780]

20 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Trying to catch up on the subject, but anything in any of the plans for those that took their loans serious and paid them back in a timely manner?   I don’t even want to think about what my 401 would look like if I had poured that money into it right out of school.  Tax breaks, credits, hell maybe even loosen limits on investment accounts to allow for lost time.  Is it a good idea to be pouring so much into 529’s for my kids? 

Who gives a shit? 

My wife and I paid ours off, do we also get that big virtual pat on the back that you feel you need? Discharging the debt will spur the economy and make you more money in the long run than giving you back your loan money. At least if you did anything worthwhile with your degree. 

But far more importantly, the idea is to continually improve society. You are essentially being told that we can improve the world for people who came after you and your response is "No way! That's not fair! I suffered so everyone who comes after me should suffer too!"

That's a disturbingly terrible attitude.

[Dahobbs 17498]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Good input and thanks for the feedback-- see? I'm coachable!

Building off your and Brisket's point, which I think is great contribution to the discussion by the way, what then is the fix? Everyone seemingly agrees there is a place for a premium, inelastic product in the higher ed space but the problem seems to be that there are not substitutes or inferior products at substitute or inferior product prices (they too demand a premium inelastic price, despite being elastic).

Seems like fundamentally an economic problem, which is why I couched it in those terms, but what to do about it other than wipe out the existing debt? That will do nothing if that is all we do. That's the epitome of treating the symptoms and not the disease.

In my mind the problem is no different than the housing problem: Similarly to higher education, the market for homes is too high for home ownership and even starter homes that are pieces of crap built in the 1970's are out of reach and priced too high for the lower income glut that makes up the bottom 50% of America (or whatever the percentage is, just using a halves marker here).

Do we fundamentally view a college degree and home ownership differently? As a right, a privilege or otherwise? I don't see many people clamoring for mortgage forgiveness because my jumbo elevator 30 year note on a house I couldn't afford is too much to service. Unlike student loans you can short-sell or foreclose, etc. which I think we should allow for those mechanisms (like bankruptcy discharging as well, I've said over and over).

 

I wasn't thinking of education as a right, though it should be one. Rather, like you, I approach it from an economic perspective. Education of the populace is an asset for a country in that it generates increased economic production (and therefore increased tax revenue). Housing, while important to have at some basic level, doesn't see the same returns. But I also agree that simply forgiving existing debt doesn't solve the problem going forward. Brisket touched on a few solutions, and I'm in general agreement with his approach. 

21 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Come on, now. It’s one thing to point out the flaws in his reasoning. But if you’re going to critique verbosity, it seems rather, ahem, stochastic to start here.

Eh, verbosity is fine so long as I can understand it. But here his arguments have been clouded by his verbosity, fueling a mutual misunderstanding.  And I was frustrated because it took me a few readings to figure out that "she" in his sentence referred to the university.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's something real simple -- available loan dollars drive tuition pricing, to some extent.  So, cap the max loan dollars, and build in requirements as to what kind of tuition they can be spent on.

Hey, University of Big Thoughts, you want to get more students who are funded by loan dollars?  Best build your tuition setup so you qualify.  Otherwise, you're not gonna get any of that money.

This is a good thought, however it seems to be in conflict with Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. If you cap loan dollars at a point that will not get you whole on tuition at UofBT, then only the elite/rich/brilliant, etc. will get into UofBT which will overwhelmingly be white, private/boarding school, etc. which then etc. etc. you get the vicious cycle.

We have to tackle problems with an eye for DEI in 2020; that is a non-negotiable for corporate and public/federal problems alike.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wasn't thinking of education as a right, though it should be one. Rather, like you, I approach it from an economic perspective. Education of the populace is an asset for a country in that it generates increased economic production (and therefore increased tax revenue). Housing, while important to have at some basic level, doesn't see the same returns. But I also agree that simply forgiving existing debt doesn't solve the problem going forward. Brisket touched on a few solutions, and I'm in general agreement with his approach. 

Eh, verbosity is fine so long as I can understand it. But here his arguments have been clouded by his verbosity, fueling a mutual misunderstanding.  And I was frustrated because it took me a few readings to figure out that "she" in his sentence referred to the university.

Sorry for that! I was playing on the "nursing mother/mother" translation of Alma mater (greek) to add a bit of color and personality to the discussion. 

[Brisketexan 104800]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

This is a good thought, however it seems to be in conflict with Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. If you cap loan dollars at a point that will not get you whole on tuition at UofBT, then only the elite/rich/brilliant, etc. will get into UofBT which will overwhelmingly be white, private/boarding school, etc. which then etc. etc. you get the vicious cycle.

We have to tackle problems with an eye for DEI in 2020; that is a non-negotiable for corporate and public/federal problems alike.

Fill in the gaps on DEI with scholarship and grant requirements.  That's the great thing about that sweet gov't guaranteed money -- you can tie all kinds of strings to it.  Want to get tuition dollars paid with federally guaranteed student loan dollars?  Then you have to meet these benchmarks.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

38 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Who gives a shit? 

My wife and I paid ours off, do we also get that big virtual pat on the back that you feel you need? Discharging the debt will spur the economy and make you more money in the long run than giving you back your loan money. At least if you did anything worthwhile with your degree. 

But far more importantly, the idea is to continually improve society. You are essentially being told that we can improve the world for people who came after you and your response is "No way! That's not fair! I suffered so everyone who comes after me should suffer too!"

That's a disturbingly terrible attitude.

This is an overly intense and unfair response, IMO. He's not saying he suffered and so others should suffer or even asking for reparations or money back, just asking a) are there going to be any gives to those who did "lose" money on having to make sacrifices to service their debt because there is/was an opportunity cost-- massive for some, smaller for others-- for doing the "right" thing and b) is it a wise money management move to fund a 529c to pay for school if there is going to be a better economic answer coming out of this in the way of forgiving loans or free/cheap college, etc.

I didn't read into this as wanting to demand anything or inflict suffering or other extreme interpretations that you seem to have made, but I'll let fatty speak for himself.

Edited November 19, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 104800]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

This is an overly intense and unfair response, IMO. He's not saying he suffered and so others should suffer or even asking for reparations or money back, just asking a) are there going to be any gives to those who did "lose" money on having to make sacrifices to service their debt because there is/was an opportunity cost-- massive for some, smaller for others-- for doing the "right" thing and b) is it a wise money management move to fund a 529c to pay for school if there is going to be a better economic answer coming out of this in the way of forgiving loans or free/cheap college, etc.

I didn't read into this as wanting to demand anything or inflict suffering or other extreme interpretations that you seem to have made, but I'll let fatty speak for himself.

Sure, how about this concept of intergenerational injustice.

Generation 1 -- got to go to school for pennies.

Generation 2 -- had to borrow lots of money to go to school, and has paid much of that back.

Generation 3 -- had to borrow even MORE money to go to school, is stuck in a debt cycle, but may eventually get some/all of that debt forgiven.

Generation 2 is looking to Generation 3 and asking "wait, why are THEY getting a sweet deal when I didn't?"  Nevermind that Generation 1 both got a SWEETER deal AND was responsible for the assfucking that Generations 2 and 3 took.

In the end, we can't move forward based on how bad we fucked up in the past.  We broke the system.  Some people took it in the shorts because of it.  The fact that we can't make shit right by everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it going forward.  Shit, by that kind of reasoning, we never should have guaranteed black people the right to vote, because what about all those black people who had to live and die making their way in a system that didn't give them a voice?  How do we ever make it fair for THEM?  We don't.  We just fix shit going forward.  It's what a rational society does.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Sure, how about this concept of intergenerational injustice.

Generation 1 -- got to go to school for pennies.

Generation 2 -- had to borrow lots of money to go to school, and has paid much of that back.

Generation 3 -- had to borrow even MORE money to go to school, is stuck in a debt cycle, but may eventually get some/all of that debt forgiven.

Generation 2 is looking to Generation 3 and asking "wait, why are THEY getting a sweet deal when I didn't?"  Nevermind that Generation 1 both got a SWEETER deal AND was responsible for the assfucking that Generations 2 and 3 took.

In the end, we can't move forward based on how bad we fucked up in the past.  We broke the system.  Some people took it in the shorts because of it.  The fact that we can't make shit right by everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it going forward.  Shit, by that kind of reasoning, we never should have guaranteed black people the right to vote, because what about all those black people who had to live and die making their way in a system that didn't give them a voice?  How do we ever make it fair for THEM?  We don't.  We just fix shit going forward.  It's what a rational society does.

Yep, I agree with your take. I also see a reasonableness in the guy's question and initial reaction.

I guess it depends on the paper process here: does any reform need to get votes and people of multiple personas/strata's to go along with it or can it be rammed through for the greater good?

I do think it would be at least somewhat prudent and practically valuable to at least listen to guys like fatty and get their POV as you go to try and craft legislation or initiatives, if they are going to have be endorsed and voted upon.

Or if it's an executive order, who cares, just blast forward as you suggest.

[safe sex 11688]

18 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Sorry for that! I was playing on the "nursing mother/mother" translation of Alma mater (greek) to add a bit of color and personality to the discussion. 

What are you, some kind of liberal arts major?

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

What are you, some kind of liberal arts major?

Not all COLA graduates are poor! (But I am both poor and liberal arts and have a $215/month student loan payment I've had for a few years  )

Edited November 19, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 104800]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Yep, I agree with your take. I also see a reasonableness in the guy's question and initial reaction.

I guess it depends on the paper process here: does any reform need to get votes and people of multiple personas/strata's to go along with it or can it be rammed through for the greater good?

I do think it would be at least somewhat prudent and practically valuable to at least listen to guys like fatty and get their POV as you go to try and craft legislation or initiatives, if they are going to have be endorsed and voted upon.

Or if it's an executive order, who cares, just blast forward as you suggest.

I'm not saying don't listen to guys like fatty.  I'm simply saying the obvious -- no matter when this would kick in, or what kind of "grandfathering" make good you put in place, it's impossible to make everyone "whole."  IT truly can't be done.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not saying don't listen to guys like fatty.  I'm simply saying the obvious -- no matter when this would kick in, or what kind of "grandfathering" make good you put in place, it's impossible to make everyone "whole."  IT truly can't be done.

Right, I hear you. Just seems like this would be more cannon fodder for the middle class persecution complex and another easy example to say, "see yet again we take it in the shorts for weird liberals and poors. There is no party for us wah wah wah" .

[Captainant 27522]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

$215/month student loan payment

this fuckin guy, bragging about his student debt payments that are under $1000/mo

[Brisketexan 104800]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Right, I hear you. Just seems like this would be more cannon fodder for the middle class persecution complex and another easy example to say, "see yet again we take it in the shorts for weird liberals and poors. There is no party for us wah wah wah" .

Except that middle class kids are the ones CURRENTLY taking it in the ass on debt.  If you are middle class and have a kid age 16 or below, you should be pulling like hell for major reforms on tuition and loans.

[safe sex 11688]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just curious, why do you think that is?  Are the teechurs practicing?  More "practical" curriculum?  Maybe students already working in healthcare (LVNs or whatnot)?

You're on the right track.

ACC students are often people who are getting into nursing as their second career, usually after the first has gone nowhere (example to come), so they tend to have more motivation than a 21-22 year old college student. Oftentimes, these are people who were working as CNAs/patient techs at a hospital. And there's literally no upward mobility in that role. There is no "charge CNA" or senior-level CNA position that you can achieve. You are a CNA and as long as you work in that role that is all you will be. And this is not me bashing the job or the people who perform it, because it is absolutely 100% essential to a hospital's homeostasis. It's a job that you can make a career of—we have CNAs who have been working in that role for over a decade—but many view it as a good way to jump into nursing. They are right about that.

The 21-22 year old traditional college nursing students are generally fine as far as all of that goes. I'm not saying that the other schools are here are lacking, but the nursing student populations are vastly different between them and ACC.

[Dahobbs 17498]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

this fuckin guy, bragging about his student debt payments that are under $1000/mo

I didn't take it as a brag. 

[Captainant 27522]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't take it as a brag. 

(recalibrate sarcasm meter, just goofin)

[DonkeyCigars 144]

57 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

You're on the right track.

ACC students are often people who are getting into nursing as their second career, usually after the first has gone nowhere (example to come), so they tend to have more motivation than a 21-22 year old college student. Oftentimes, these are people who were working as CNAs/patient techs at a hospital. And there's literally no upward mobility in that role. There is no "charge CNA" or senior-level CNA position that you can achieve. You are a CNA and as long as you work in that role that is all you will be. And this is not me bashing the job or the people who perform it, because it is absolutely 100% essential to a hospital's homeostasis. It's a job that you can make a career of—we have CNAs who have been working in that role for over a decade—but many view it as a good way to jump into nursing. They are right about that.

The 21-22 year old traditional college nursing students are generally fine as far as all of that goes. I'm not saying that the other schools are here are lacking, but the nursing student populations are vastly different between them and ACC.

Interesting POV and something I've heard as well. My neighbor's wife got a BSN and ultimately went into healthcare software marketing or something completely unrelated to nursing, but the folks who got a 2 year nursing degree kill it and make just as much as a BSN.

Why would you go to a 4 year university, incur the debt, for a BSN when you can go get a 2 year degree, on the cheap, and get to making real money ASAP? Because you can't be an Tri-Delt, I guess? (or whatever other "real college experience" people think is worth a full boat cost).

[TexasBeta 1261]

What schools like SFA and others like them - Sam Houston, etc need to do is cut their degree programs and unload what I would consider the dead weight driving their costs up. Start with most of the humanities. Simplify degree plans. You want a BA in Liberal Arts. Ok. You get history, English, a foreign language (4 Max), government, economics, sociology and psychology. You don’t need a 100 degree paths. My opinion. Cut 40% out of the budget plus.

Take SFA.

Degree plans
Forestry - what they are known for
Liberal Arts
Science
Business
Engineering

That’s it. Not a reason in the world tuition per year at SFA should be more than 10k per year for 15 hours.

[Bevo 13534]

32 minutes ago, TexasBeta said:

What schools like SFA and others like them - Sam Houston, etc need to do is cut their degree programs and unload what I would consider the dead weight driving their costs up. Start with most of the humanities. Simplify degree plans. You want a BA in Liberal Arts. Ok. You get history, English, a foreign language (4 Max), government, economics, sociology and psychology. You don’t need a 100 degree paths. My opinion. Cut 40% out of the budget plus.

Take SFA.

Degree plans
Forestry - what they are known for
Liberal Arts
Science
Business
Engineering

That’s it. Not a reason in the world tuition per year at SFA should be more than 10k per year for 15 hours.

That's not what is driving prices up. School administration has tons of overhead compared to the private sector and school presidents have big dick syndrome and the larger they make their university and the more research they bring in, the better they look and the more money they make, so they build expensive research buildings and such and fill them with expensive faculty and even more expensive administration. Meanwhile, states are decreasing funding to universities to pay for other stuff because there is an infinite amount of federal dollars to give to students to fund the scholastic endeavors.

[Brisketexan 104800]

8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

That's not what is driving prices up. School administration has tons of overhead compared to the private sector and school presidents have big dick syndrome and the larger they make their university and the more research they bring in, the better they look and the more money they make, so they build expensive research buildings and such and fill them with expensive faculty and even more expensive administration. Meanwhile, states are decreasing funding to universities to pay for other stuff because there is an infinite amount of federal dollars to give to students to fund the scholastic endeavors.

Not a terrible summary.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Don't forget the expensive rec centers, student centers, and older dorm buildings being torn down to build fancy apartment style dorms that cost two or three times as much to live in.

[TexasBeta 1261]

That's not what is driving prices up. School administration has tons of overhead compared to the private sector and school presidents have big dick syndrome and the larger they make their university and the more research they bring in, the better they look and the more money they make, so they build expensive research buildings and such and fill them with expensive faculty and even more expensive administration. Meanwhile, states are decreasing funding to universities to pay for other stuff because there is an infinite amount of federal dollars to give to students to fund the scholastic endeavors.

That makes sense as well. Thx. I worked in East Texas a few years after UT and ran into a bunch of SFA grads. So I got curious and looked at the degrees they offered. It seemed really excessive considering the population they serve. And after looking at their tuition - 10,600 for tuition. The rest of their estimate is room and board and books etc for a total of 25k per year / 15 hours per semester. That’s not bank breaking.

[Brisketexan 104800]

1 minute ago, TexasBeta said:

 

That makes sense as well. Thx. I worked in East Texas a few years after UT and ran into a bunch of SFA grads. So I got curious and looked at the degrees they offered. It seemed really excessive considering the population they serve. And after looking at their tuition - 10,600 for tuition. The rest of their estimate is room and board and books etc for a total of 25k per year / 15 hours per semester. That’s not bank breaking.

 

No, it's not bank breaking, but it's on par with UT.  And it's too much for middle class students, and certainly below that.  It went up way faster than the inflation rate.

[TexasBeta 1261]

No, it's not bank breaking, but it's on par with UT.  And it's too much for middle class students, and certainly below that.  It went up way faster than the inflation rate.

I wonder what fully or just better state funding could do to these numbers. How much has the state of texas pulled from higher head since let’s say the mid 80’s. Which by the way was a great time to be on the 40, less the football experience.