KevinC
2994
Is that anyone’s campaign slogan yet? Because it should be.
My campaign manager is still thinking we’re going to go with “Fucking traitors, the lot of them.”
Matt_W
2996
Let me qualify. It depends on where you go. College here is definitely more expensive, by far, than it was 20 years ago. But, the two major state schools in my city cost $14,451 and $7,054 (UCSD and SDSU respectively) for annual tuition and fees. A degree from either of those (my MS is from SDSU) is a good education and will very adequately suffice for the certification requirement for almost any job that requires a degree. I’m not saying it’s not expensive, but it doesn’t have to cost $35k.
Yeah, the original quote also covered that:
Sure does. I graduated from UVM in the early 90’s, tuition was around $4k (in state, out of state was $10k.)
And now:
I dropped the equivalent of $190k on Boston U 2005-9, or about $47.5k/year. It’s up to $72,000/year now for on-campus (and given that it’s located in downtown metro Boston, it’s not like you’ll save much living off-campus).
Shit is FUCKED
KevinC
3000
What are you complaining about? You get to have a mortgage payment without any of the responsibilities of owning a house!
Heh, thanks to a really good scholarship, a massive financial sacrifice on the part of my parents, working multiple jobs year-long, including all breaks (even Xmas), and never seeing a dime of the money we got from selling my grandparents’ property and home in Louisiana when they died, I am actually out from under the debt-monster as of last fall. 9 years payoff time!
Now, my girlfriend, on the other hand, is in the hole $91,000 from her Bachelor’s Degree at a state school and an attempt (failed) at a Master’s at another state school. She was unemployed for a long time and didn’t get her shit together fast enough when she started earning money. She’s getting wage-garnished for 21% of her paycheck, probably for the rest of her life, since she can’t afford to recover the defaulted loans on top of the garnishments :(
CraigM
3002
And student loans are one of the few types of loans on negotiable or dischargeable under bankruptcy proceedings! So you don’t have to worry if there is something you can do to get out of that debt, you can’t!
I’m sure that’s a relief to know.
Technically the current garnishments don’t cover interest, so at the present rate, she will actually never pay it off. At this point she’s wondering what the point of working even is.
A VERY GOOD MIXTURE FOR SOMEONE SUFFERING FROM SEVERE DEPRESSION
edit oopsie I had my monthly rate wrong cuz she gets paid biweekly. she will pay it off in 50 years my b.
KevinC
3004
Seriously. It’s indentured servitude. We tell kids that if they want a job with decent pay they must go to college. Then we jack up the rates of college so that they spend decades paying lenders a significant portion of their earnings for the privilege of working or the people that have the capital. Great system we have here.
This article seems relevant (as basically very few people could pay those costs without loans. If there were no loans, would costs go down?)
Unlike most other student loan programs, PLUS loans are not capped—parents may borrow up to the cost of attendance, which is determined by the college. This creates incentives for colleges to increase student charges, since the federal government will make sure all eligible parents have access to the money. And PLUS loans take the lid off any tuition constraints that the caps on other loan programs might impose: since colleges know students can fall back on PLUS if they exhaust their traditional student loans, tuition may keep rising in spite of those caps.
These newly ineligible parent borrowers were more concentrated at some colleges than others, so the authors compared what happened to tuition at colleges more exposed to the change versus those less exposed. In theory, “high-exposure” colleges should have seen tuition fall more, since they had more students suddenly deprived of a significant source of credit.
This is precisely what happened. Kargar and Mann estimate that the 2011 reining-in of the PLUS program reduced net tuition by $487 and published tuition by $1,372 at “high-exposure” colleges. Since the 2011 policy change only affected a minority of PLUS borrowers, these figures probably understate the full inflationary impact of the loan program.
Narrator: No.
There were student loan programs in e.g. 1980, and tuition costs were much, much lower. What’s changed is that states have decided not to fund state universities with tax revenues, opting instead to have them be funded through tuition and fees.
You replied quickly. Try to read the fine article. I’ll pull out quotes so you don’t have to read a few hundred words before you spasm to reply quickly.
Menzo
3009
Yeah, there’s no question that uncapped student loans have driven tuition costs through the roof.
Disagreement isn’t the same thing as lack of comprehension, but you know that.
The data from the article/paper is from 2011. So when did your argument take effect?
Now you can accuse me incomprehension. I have no idea what you’re asking.
