Million Student March

New Kid, you are making valid points, but it comes down to can it be changed? Being a realist, my answer is yes when the college debt bubble causes a financial crisis. Or college cost finally convince kids to stop applying to expansive schools.

Perhaps some folks might think that what happened in Baltimore recently, through civil protest that things can change. Time will tell, but I will postulate that there is a limit on what can be changed by civil protests.
Although very practical your “maybe” ideas are, the challenges will be how to implement them

Not having ’college’ . . . being used as a credential in the job market
Eliminate certain degree requirement from certain jobs
Certain kinds of college free
Start threatening wealthy colleges with revocation of their non-profit status

Some of these ideas are practiced in different countries, but some actions required to make above things happen is the government takeover of our society. The college degree required is a screening step for most jobs as other than professional jobs (i.e. lawyer, engineers, doctors, CPA and etc, which are also tied to some sort of certification or license). Employers can simple take out college degree required on their job advertisement. After accepting all applications, they can simply screen out applicants without college degree.

At the end, it doesn’t matter if we are stereotyping college debt holder as liberal arts major or 30-something that earned anther degree for a job promotion. They decided to invest in their education and their investment didn’t turn out. If I borrow money to invest to provide for my family and lose money, no one is going to say I was force to do it or my debt should be forgive because my intention was good.
 
Being a realist, my answer is yes when the college debt bubble causes a financial crisis. Or college cost finally convince kids to stop applying to expansive schools.

1000% agree.

Look at what happened in the 90s with the tech bubble, and 2005 with the housing bubble. At a certain point the market will not bear the price.
~ Part of that housing/credit bubble also was created because of the cost of college. Many parents that did not have the money, but owned a home took bad home equity loans to pay for the kids college.

What I see with this issue is the same as the housing market a decade ago. People were driven by ego/image regarding success (keeping up with the Jones). Not having your kid go straight off to a 4 yr. college makes them question their success as a parent.

I have seen in recent years a trend showing that we are on the bubble. Many of my friends are now saying to their kids I am not going to "BUY" your college degree. They are doing so because they live in a state like VA or NC where if the student attends the local CC for 2 years, and maintains a 3.0 or better cgpa they gain automatic acceptance to any state U.

If I borrow money to invest to provide for my family and lose money, no one is going to say I was force to do it or my debt should be forgive because my intention was good.
Not to bring up the housing market again, but I will because I am one of those homeowners underwater. Don't get me wrong we have a good mtg rate (4 3/8%), but we can't refinance to a lower rate due to the fact that our home will not appraise at what is owed on our mtg. Nobody's fault, but our own. My intention was good...believing when we purchased it with 15% down, that the market would not collapse like it did.

Just like college kids when entering with their intentions believing that our economy could bear salaries to pay back their student loans.

LIFE HAPPENS.

My only question is where are these kids parents standing on this issue? If they agree with their children, than where were they when these kids applied to their expensive dream college? Where were they as they saw their kids take mountains of debt? Did they sit them down and discuss how they will repay the debt...googled the avg salary for their career, do the math...35K - fed/state taxes, - health insurance, - student loan, - car pmt, - rent, - utilities and than say this is how much you will be left with for food, spending (clothes, entertainment) and to invest (401K/IRA)?

Did they say to them is 4 years at this college with 50K+ in loans, worth 10 years of being in debt after graduation? Or did they ignore it and just bragged to everyone that the kid got into their 1st choice school?

OBTW, I have a niece that "bought" her degree impo. She has over 100K in debt now because that was the college she gained admittance to for matriculation. Moving out of Mom's home is not really viable due to the amount of her college debt. Our DD, the exact same age, lives on her own, pays all of her own bills, and does not need our financial support. DD is a HS teacher, so from a paycheck aspect she is not pulling in big bucks, yet she is doing all of that and investing in her 401K.
~ The difference is Bullet and I sat our kids down and discussed 4 years from now when you graduate and how you will payback college.

Just saying, I think as a parent, we too have hurt our own kids, by not stepping up and discussing real life finances. We allowed them to continue down the path that the piper will be paid later, so let's just ignore it now.
 
My only question is where are these kids parents standing on this issue?

Blinded by love

My standing is that I will provide whatever finanical support I can (i.e. I have two kids, each will get 1/2 of what I saved for their college education) and anything beyond that is their decision and their debt. Hopefully, I can make them mature enough for them to make the right decision that is right for them.
 
I don't disagree with anyone's point about individual choices. Yes, we all make choices all the time. Yes, as individuals we all have to live with the choices we make. I tend to have a lot of sympathy for people who unwittingly make bad choices when young, but, of course, they have to find a viable way to make a go of it regardless. No argument there.

But to me, this question is a macro question about the way that we're structuring educational opportunity in this country rather than a micro question about a given individual's personal choice. The macro issue is that our economy is growing in ways that produce jobs that (currently) demand college preparation, yet the cost of that preparation is skyrocketing. That's a recipe for a mismatched labor market.

You're right Momba, the data I linked to before is from 2002. It was just the first easily linkable document I found. Here's more up-t0-date data with more nuance: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp.

As you'll see, it indicates similar things -- the main difference is the explosive growth of the private, for-profit college industry, which can be seen with updated data in the following chart (specifically, the fourth graph down): http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

But my main point is that if we typify the current college-debt holders inaccurately -- as simply entitled teenagers majoring in namby-pamby fields -- we risk missing the point of the argument. It is a data-confirmed fact that the vast majority of students enrolled in college today are enrolled in public colleges, and that the actual majority (50+%) are either enrolled at CC, or are a non-traditional student. The college debt crisis is not because 18 or 19 or 20 year olds are choosing the Cadillac over the Ford. It's because college costs everywhere are rising and everyone is taking on debt. You can read about these patterns more here: https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/trends-2010-who-borrows-most-brief.pdf

The reason I go to lengths to make this point is that we simultaneously have an economy that is growing in ways that produces jobs that require people to have college degrees. Here's a report out of a policy center at Georgetown that projects job growth through 2020: https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf

The highlight takeaway from that report is that we're anticipating 65% of job growth will be jobs that require at least some college education. We're also projecting that there will be a 5 million person shortfall of people with adequate post-secondary education to fill those jobs.

The rising costs of college are making it cost-prohibitive for people to pursue post-secondary education at the exact moment that the growth of our economy is contingent upon people getting that education. This is just bad news for our economy. Not individually, but structurally.

Look, I think the girl in that video at the start of this thread is annoying. I'm pretty sure we all do. But dismissing the idea that we need to radically restructure the way that university degrees are financed in this country because a small portion of the people talking about this are entitled whiners is short-sighted. We DO need to rethink how college pricing operates and/or how 'college' is being used as a credential in the job market.

Maybe it means certain kinds of college (or post-secondary training) are free. Maybe it means we eliminate certain degree requirements from certain jobs. Maybe it means that we radically expand community college offerings and radically regulate the pricing systems at for-profit colleges. Maybe we start threatening wealthy colleges with revocation of their non-profit status if they don't start spending down some of their endowments. But something's gotta give.

The crisis that we're heading towards -- and the college debt bubble could end up being a genuine financial crisis -- is not just debt borne by entitled 19 year olds majoring in philosophy (just so everyone's aware, enrollment in the true liberal arts & humanities have been declining for years). It's also debt borne by students studying engineering, and students who spent their first two years at community college, and 30-somethings who are trying to go back and get a degree that will help them get a promotion at work. It's debt borne by people who we want to be financially stable so that they can participate in and contribute to the economy going forward. It's a real and serious problem, and even if the annoying girl in that video is a terrible messenger, there is a piece of her message that's worth listening to.

So to paraphrase, the taxpayers should take on paying for a college student's education because most of the private sector jobs require a college degree of some sort.

No, just no.

College costs have grown exponentially, far exceeding the cost of living increases. This is what needs to be addressed. Lots of things fed this growth: generous salaries and benefits, research, fancy campuses (architecture, landscaping, furniture, tech, gyms, etc.), etc. etc.. Colleges sit on huge endowments while their tuition rate growth still exceeds the cost of living growth. Supply and demand: most colleges have far more applicants than accepted. Image: people are still willing to pay more for a degree from a top tier college because they believe it will gain them more in the long run.

Do you really think the cost of college will decrease if it becomes "free"? No, the cost to educate will grow even faster. The govt. has never made anything cheaper by mandating it is "free". Sure, Joe Student may not get a bill up front, but over the years, he will be paying for it, probably far more than it actually cost at the time.
 
Also, lets look at what will happen if public colleges become "free"

The number of applicants for a state college will sky rocket.
Thus more admissions personnel will need to be hired in order to handle the load. (increase in funding/cost)
Most likely, software and hardware will need to be improved to handle the processing of all the applications. (increase in funding/cost)
More "higher academic achievers" will apply and get in thus raising the entry level academic requirements and making it more competitive.
This will result in someone hollering about discrimination and unfair to those with lesser academics as those who live at a lower socioeconomic situation usually have under performing school districts.
This will in turn will result in one or more of the following
1) expanding the "free public" colleges to enable more to attend (greatly increase funding/cost)
2) mandated strict "equal opportunity/diversity" percentage of student population based upon ethnic heritage (generate greater resentment among various groups of people, etc. etc. etc.)
3) admittance based strictly on socioeconomic background. Thus the poor kids get in and go free while the middle and upper kids have to fund their own college while paying higher taxes to fund someone else to go free. (generate greater resentment again)

That is just some of the potential consequences.

There is no real "win" here for anyone other than those who want to increase bureaucracy, govt spending, and inflame resentments.
 
If you go back and read my posts, I never advocated directly for free education. I've argued that it's a worthwhile idea to explore b/c the issue that the students are highlighting -- that the debt situation now is different in size, scope, & severity than it's ever been before -- is real, and is not simply the result of entitlement, laziness, or poor decision-making. We have a broken system of pricing and financing in higher education, and it's seeding a generation that's saddled with debt that's going to have a negative impact on our economy going forward. I'd love to see other ideas that aren't just 'let's wait until the debt crisis hits." It seems like we should be able to improve things more pro-actively.

Your last posts seem to engage this idea, Momba, so I appreciate that, even if it presumes that it's a bad idea. Yes, it's a complicated issue, but that's not a reason to automatically dismiss it. I don't think your concerns related to additional admissions staff are much of an obstacle -- in part b/c admissions vetting isn't a particularly expensive piece of the budget. (Admissions PR is much more expensive, and that would be less of a concern if it's free). Also, we can look to states who've already enacted systems like this -- Georgia, for one -- and see what the effect was. The administrative effect wasn't huge, and on the positive side it drew more student toward public education options, and kept them in-state (which was the goal). Obviously, that's not relevant if this were enacted nationally, but it might discourage people from opting for more expensive private options -- which is, again, part of this conversation. In truth, the likeliest way that potential enrollment overages would play out would be an increase in community colleges to serve the exact function that we've been discussing in this thread. Also, while competition for spots would definitely rise at flagship campuses, other students would then roll off to other campuses, which would potentially increase the desirability of those campus communities. And so on.

Anyway, I'm not going to go to the mat for free education right now. I don't know enough. I just really take issue with typifying current college students and debt-holders as merely entitled and short-sighted. That's a straw-man argument, and it frustrates me because it distracts from the real issue at hand, which is a higher ed financing system that has all the wrong incentives to inflate pricing.

In aggregate, we have a generation trying to work their way through a financially self-defeating system. I think it's useful to think through how we can improve that system actively rather than passively waiting for it to implode on itself.
 
At 8:26 mins in, a student said what I have stated...basically they would tell others to be open to CC to reduce their debt.
~ The problem with that link is at the very end...
~~ My name is Briana...majoring in Enviromentalism Art, ...what the heck is that? Ash in screenwriting...gee shocker regarding job opportunity and pay. Followed on with students majoring in German and pre-law, or Art History and Italian.
~~ There is a student that majored in Biology...but guess what dude..take the Praxis and become a HS teacher.

In the end of that link, my heart did not break for these students. Seriously...what did you expect with degrees like those? Did you or your parents think employers would be pounding down your door?
~ I could see it if they interned as a translator in college.

This is going to be harsh, but I am not willing to pay one tax dollar for you to spend 4 more years in college enjoying life instead of working and paying into the system.
~ Every dollar I pay towards taxes, means 1 less in disposable income I will spend...that means I will not be purchasing a new car as soon as I would before.
~~ 1 in 6 jobs in our country is tied to the auto industry.. take a good look inside your car...computer chips, plastics, textiles, light bulbs, etc. That also does not address the loan and insurance industry.
~ I am not going to be spending money at restaurants or even stores like Target because I have to pay off a debt fpr a degree in environmentalist art!

Want to know why impo we are here now? Because like MemberLG responded to me...blinded by love. Bullet would probably say because parents see their child as a special snowflake.

Sorry, but I have no pity for those interviewed...that is wrong. I do have pity. I pity the fact that their parents let them walk down this path of debt. Shame on their parents for blowing smoke up their arse with this idea that when they were 22 they would be competitive. Shame on them if they knew at 18 they would need a Masters or higher and go deeper in debt.

just saying ...my kid would love to own a vette, should you ante up money because a vette is more expensive than a 2010 Honda? Or would you say to me that it is my family decision to buy that vette? isn't that the same for college? Your family choose to go in debt, how/why is that my responsibility to carry the burden/cost for what I deem extravagant?
~ This is also akin to saying...I am 18, legally responsible, but when I default at 21 on the loan, I should be given a given a pass because I didn't understand that 50K meant was more than I could bite off.
~~ Can you imagine as a parent saying that for your mtg? No?! Well, if you support this march that is what you are saying.
~~~ You are saying you never sat down one on one with your kids. You have to know even at 7% and 75K, and you having a 100K mtg at 5% means you knew that loan would be a chunk. You had to know it was not going to be 200 a month.

YOU HAD TO KNOW the financial cost unless they never took a mtg, never took a car loan and never owned a credit card. So that begs the question, why would you let them go so far om debt

Contrary to popular belief...attending college is NOT a given right.
 
Last edited:
Tug's video is simply unwatchable.

The laughing young lady at 0:25 is standing in the middle of the NYU campus--$46k tuition--sitting on the most expensive real estate in the US. I barely made it through the kid invoking his ww2 Vet Grandfather and SF father before shutting it off.
 
If you go back and read my posts, I never advocated directly for free education. I've argued that it's a worthwhile idea to explore b/c the issue that the students are highlighting -- that the debt situation now is different in size, scope, & severity than it's ever been before -- is real, and is not simply the result of entitlement, laziness, or poor decision-making. We have a broken system of pricing and financing in higher education, and it's seeding a generation that's saddled with debt that's going to have a negative impact on our economy going forward. I'd love to see other ideas that aren't just 'let's wait until the debt crisis hits." It seems like we should be able to improve things more pro-actively.

Your last posts seem to engage this idea, Momba, so I appreciate that, even if it presumes that it's a bad idea. Yes, it's a complicated issue, but that's not a reason to automatically dismiss it. I don't think your concerns related to additional admissions staff are much of an obstacle -- in part b/c admissions vetting isn't a particularly expensive piece of the budget. (Admissions PR is much more expensive, and that would be less of a concern if it's free). Also, we can look to states who've already enacted systems like this -- Georgia, for one -- and see what the effect was. The administrative effect wasn't huge, and on the positive side it drew more student toward public education options, and kept them in-state (which was the goal). Obviously, that's not relevant if this were enacted nationally, but it might discourage people from opting for more expensive private options -- which is, again, part of this conversation. In truth, the likeliest way that potential enrollment overages would play out would be an increase in community colleges to serve the exact function that we've been discussing in this thread. Also, while competition for spots would definitely rise at flagship campuses, other students would then roll off to other campuses, which would potentially increase the desirability of those campus communities. And so on.

Anyway, I'm not going to go to the mat for free education right now. I don't know enough. I just really take issue with typifying current college students and debt-holders as merely entitled and short-sighted. That's a straw-man argument, and it frustrates me because it distracts from the real issue at hand, which is a higher ed financing system that has all the wrong incentives to inflate pricing.

In aggregate, we have a generation trying to work their way through a financially self-defeating system. I think it's useful to think through how we can improve that system actively rather than passively waiting for it to implode on itself.

It appears you missed my point, as it would NOT be free. It would be financed by tax dollars, which means taxes would go up. This means less household money for Joe taxpayer, which impacts everything in a family life. From the basics (food, clothing, shelter) to luxuries (family vacation, holiday gifts, hobbies, etc..).

From above you said "Obviously, that's not relevant if this were enacted nationally, but it might discourage people from opting for more expensive private options." This implies that paying a lesser state tuition is not enough to encourage people to go to public college instead of private college It has to be completely free to encourage anyone to save money by taking the state option? To me, that makes absolutely no sense: going into greater debt because the cheaper option isn't free.

Any increase in the bureaucracy increases the cost of tuition which increases taxes. So the cost to educate goes up, and will impact family and their budgets. There is NO free lunch.

Also, to be clear. A state college is run by the state. If a state wants to burden its tax payers with "free" in-state tuition, then that is their right. It certainly shouldn't be anything federally mandated.

My brief post outlining the issues with "free" tuition was just to point out some of the obvious issues. This doesn't even begin to address those who go to trade schools (plumbers, electricians, etc..). Why should college be "free" for some, but not trade schools? These professions are just as important as others.

I am tired of hearing the younger generation hollering for "free stuff" when they are faced with the consequences of their choices. Their first and easy solution is always have someone else pay for it.

I am not thrilled with the level of debt and its implication. However, making things "free" won't solve the underlying issue: getting the rise of college tuition under control. What it will do is grow the cost of tuition and the amount the taxpayer has confiscated from his earnings. It will reduce the standard of living for everyone.
 
....I'm not going to go to the mat for free education right now. I don't know enough. I just really take issue with typifying current college students and debt-holders as merely entitled and short-sighted. That's a straw-man argument, and it frustrates me because it distracts from the real issue at hand, which is a higher ed financing system that has all the wrong incentives to inflate pricing.

In aggregate, we have a generation trying to work their way through a financially self-defeating system. I think it's useful to think through how we can improve that system actively rather than passively waiting for it to implode on itself.

I'd like to raise my hand here. I am NOT blinded by love. I have identical twin sons who are seniors in high school. Finding them an affordable path to college has been at the VERY top of my priority list.

The fact is, no matter how you slice it, the cost of college is just crushing. The fact is, because of fundamental shifts in the job markets, a large percentage of current college graduates cannot find jobs in their career fields. For example, my daughter graduated with a Paralegal degree one year ago (imo, a pretty darn practical field), and she is still waitressing full-time. The fact is that graduates like my daughter push those without a college degree out of those types of jobs. Meaning, not having a college degree leads to even less upward mobility than at any time in our society. Meaning that there is even greater pressure than ever to earn a degree. And then, of course, the crushing expense and debt they assume to earn that degree. It is quite the vicious cycle.

New Kid is correct. My daughter was fortunate to get assistance from her grandparents, to the tune of $26,000. And she's is fortunate to only have $15,000 in student loan debt. That's lucky, because she can pick up extra shifts as a waitress to pay them off.

As far as my sons, one has enlisted in the National Guard. If he is careful, and lucky, he has the easiest path of all my kids to a debt free college education. Easiest as long as he's not deployed or killed before earning his degree. And fwiw, we've had intense discussions regarding a practical degree. He's leaning toward Accounting.

My other son is not interested in a military path. He is leaning toward a double major in Biochemistry and German. I am, of course, extremely concerned because Biochemistry really requires graduate work for full potential. But is a science degree really impractical for a kid with a 3.78 GPA, a 30 ACT, with a 35 in Science, and passed AP Biology with a 5? Is German really impractical for a kid who has 3 years of German in high school, attended German immersion camps, and passed the AP German exam without taking a AP German course because his school didn't offer it. For a kid who was a semi-finalist in the highly competitive Congress-Bunderstaag Youth Exchange scholarship sponsored by the State Department? For a kid that has a burning desire to study abroad, and the chops to back it up?

Should I discourage this kid from attending college - an Eagle Scout, Order of the Arrow, National Honor Society, AP Honor Scholar, Vice President of Student Council, Service Chair of Kentucky Youth Association, Lodge Secretary of Scouting Council, Red Cross Certified Life Guard who has worked since he was 15 years old?

He has applied and been accepted to two colleges. One is a private liberal arts to tune of $50,000/per year. The other is a large state school at $19,000/per year. The benefit of the private college is NOT prestige. It is he will have a better shot to being accepted to grad school.

So, we are waiting to hear what scholarships he will receive. Then we will crunch and re-crunch the numbers to help him in making the best decision. I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that he's looking at about $30,000 in student loan debt to get his undergraduate degree.

And THAT is what is crushing about cost of college.
 
I'm not arguing against trade schools at all. In a conversation about potentially making some forms of higher ed free, trade school would and should be one of the options discussed as I've said repeatedly. I'm completely and unequivocally in support of an increase in trade education. And in community college -- that's actually the form of college that's most often cited as being something we could realistically make 'free'. (Acknowledging that, yes, that would come from taxes.)

It really feels like we're talking past each other in this conversation. I keep offering evidence to indicate that 1) the vast majority of students already enroll in public education; 2) a massive portion (40%) already enroll in community college; and 3) all sectors are bearing unsustainable debt levels.

As of 2008, 73% of students were enrolled in public post-secondary options, 19% were enrolled in private, non-profit schools, and 8% were enrolled in private, for-profit schools (which primarily are trade or highly professionalized schools). That breakdown shows that the significant majority of students are already taking the low-cost higher education options -- and they're still bearing a debt burden that will impact their future ability to do things like buy houses and cars and so on. This is a problem for all of us, not just for the people with the debt.

The response to me providing this data is videos like the one above, which is laughably terrible. No, it doesn't engender sympathy. Instead it propagates this straw-man idea that the debt crisis is b/c ditzy kids who never bothered to research anything and majored in film at fancy private universities are saddled with $160,000 in debt and are giggling about it. That's a statistically tiny portion of the population. And it's a portion of the population that's really easy to dismiss. If the only people who were being burdened with debt were those kids, this would not be a serious problem.

The problem is a lot more complicated and a lot broader. For instance, the rate of default on debt incurred from community college loans is much higher than the rate of default on 4-year loans: http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/fres...-community-college-leave-so-many-debt-n441881

Or look at the top 10 majors: the top 7 are Business, Psychology, Nursing, Biology, Education, Criminal Justice, and Accounting. Those don't seem like indications of wild impracticality to me: http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/ (Even the bottom three: Liberal Arts, English and History aren't Film Studies or Women's Studies or Environmental Art or whatever. They're fairly generic liberal arts degrees that lots of employers cite as a hire-able baseline degree.)

I'm not saying that the perfect solution has been proposed -- in fact, I don't think it's been proposed. But I truly believe this is an issue that we need to start talking and thinking about creatively without a knee-jerk reaction about "entitlement" or "consequences". It has to do with exploding prices, it has to do with a wildly complicated college financing system, it has to do with this system incentivizing a rise in usurious private loan providers, it has to the do with the largely unregulated growth of for-profit higher education.

The issue is endemic to higher education -- including trade school and community college -- not to entitled kids who want to go to private colleges. Not a single piece of evidence has been offered to indicate that the phenomenon of kids opting for fancy options over un-fancy options has much to do with it. It has much more to do with the fact that what Mike Rowe describes about his path -- being able to go to a $28/credit hour community college and get some skills and consider his future unencumbered by debt or financial pressure -- hardly exists any longer. It's becoming so rare it's nearly vanishing. People make bad decisions because they have a bunch of not great options. There are certainly exceptions. But there's a certain Lake Woebegon effect operating in a lot of the conversation on this thread -- the idea that everyone just needs to seek out an exception. Fine, fine, but exceptions are, definitionally, not options for a majority of seekers.

If you're overarching argument is that there are plenty of jobs out there that allow someone to not live at the poverty line and require no higher education -- no trade school, no community college, no college of any kind -- then I'd love to see that data! Please, provide it. That would be absolutely awesome.

I just don't think those jobs exist in the numbers to answer this issue -- I think that's pretty fundamentally what economists have been observing for the past 30 years, which is a major part of why kids have been funneled toward college. I agree, maybe that advice has been ill-advised, but again, it hasn't been so they can just party and major in ceramics and 'find themselves' or 'feel good'.

Maybe part of the issue here is just that we perceive people's motivations differently. Personally, I've taught in public schools, as well as at a public university and a private university. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that young people are larking about being irresponsible and not caring about consequences -- neither personally nor with research. If anything, I feel like I've seen a growing focus in the past decade on professionalization and taking a path that will lead to a job. I certainly know some lazy teenagers and 20-somethings, but the majority that I've met are far more focused and determined and worried about the stability of their futures than I was at their age. They worry about this because they perceive diminishing economic opportunities, and they simultaneously are all too aware of the debt they (or their friends) are accruing in order to try to capture a chance at those diminishing opportunities. I just don't know a lot of people who are like the kids in the video above. And I don't think the aggregate data indicates that's the majority of the 18-25 set.
 
1+ Pima...on a roll there. You go girl!
Sorry, but I have no pity for those interviewed...that is wrong. I do have pity. I pity the fact that their parents let them walk down this path of debt. Shame on their parents for blowing smoke up their arse with this idea that when they were 22 they would be competitive. Shame on them if they knew at 18 they would need a Masters or higher and go deeper in debt.

That was my first thought; where was the guidance from the parents about what it would cost? We had the one on one talk with our DD as she had her eyes set on Cornell, Stanford and USC (before she knew of USAFA). We tried to steer her toward one our our three state schools, but her guidance counselor said she has more potential than to go local. I say hogwash! We have great state schools. So we crunched the numbers WITH our then sophomore student and it went like this:

DD, it costs 60K plus to go to any of those three schools. We have saved $ in a 529 enough to cover your costs to go to local school for 4 years. You can choose to go to the OOS school but you will be responsible for the difference; 40K for 4 years, or about 160K by the time you graduate. Have a great time at college. Her eyes were bigger than flying saucers as she contemplated how in the world she was going to pay it. She decided right then and there that she was not going to have any debt and proceeded to work her tail off. She decided to only apply to schools that offered substantial merit scholarships as well as USAFA, her number one choice. She has been accepted to Baylor, Texas A&M and ASU so far with most all tuition/fees paid for. She is a NMS semi-finalist and all three schools have promised almost full rides if she is named a finalist. She feels pretty good about how she has approached the issue and is extremely happy about graduating debt free. It can be done if the student is willing to work hard.

As far as the video, there was some good advice about working first for a year or two, saving money and then going to college. There are many companies that will help with tuition, or even pay all tuition (Starbucks) to help good employees advance their careers. There is also nothing wrong with enlisting in the military such as Kyguardmom's DS did. I did the same and it really helped with my own tuition costs, albeit, I did not earn a degree until 10 years later. I was a single mom, had a job as a Corpsman, went to school at night at a CC and then graduated with no debt. It can be done if one is willing to sacrifice and work hard.

Most of the kids in that video were clueless about how life really works and it makes me wonder what the heck kids are being taught in high school. Where in the world was the instruction from their parents? How could they think that they could borrow money and not realize they had to pay it back? I guess they thought it was free money; oh wait, it is. Obama just forgave them their debt and now we have to pay. I'm with Pima all the way on this one. I do not want to pay for their biting off more than they can chew. They seemed well spoken but entirely out of touch with reality and what it takes to budget and manage their daily life. That video was a true depiction of the spoils of helicopter parenting. I wonder how many of them had summer jobs and had to pay for their own extracurricular events etc. Welcome to the way life really is.
 
The fact is, no matter how you slice it, the cost of college is just crushing. The fact is, because of fundamental shifts in the job markets, a large percentage of current college graduates cannot find jobs in their career fields. For example, my daughter graduated with a Paralegal degree one year ago (imo, a pretty darn practical field), and she is still waitressing full-time. The fact is that graduates like my daughter push those without a college degree out of those types of jobs. Meaning, not having a college degree leads to even less upward mobility than at any time in our society. Meaning that there is even greater pressure than ever to earn a degree. And then, of course, the crushing expense and debt they assume to earn that degree. It is quite the vicious cycle.

This. The vicious cycle that KYguardmom describes is at the heart of the problem. I feel for the pressures on your son as he makes his decision, and it just seems societally negligent that we can't come up with a better system.

The USC/Stanford/Cornell story is simply not the pattern. I understand that it's a compelling story because it was a personal experience -- and that many posters here may have seen that play out in their social universes. But it's not the overall trend nationally. It is not why we are heading toward a debt crisis. Most people go to the lowest-cost, public option and still incur debt.

And it isn't true that if you simply work hard you can graduate debt free. It can be true for an individual, but it is not true for the majority any longer. I have seen no research that indicates this claim has any basis in fact. I'm very glad that you managed to do so. There are plenty of anecdotal examples of people who did so, and they can rightly feel good about their circumstances. But there simply aren't enough scholarships out there for that to be a holistic solution.

A fraction of the population can make use of those opportunities. Most can't b/c, definitionally, they are only available to a small percentage.

This is true unless you happen to live in a handful of states that have done exactly what we're talking about -- found a way (though public or private funding) to make public tuition cost-free for state residents who meet certain requirements. These are good programs that have benefited the individual states.
 
My other son is not interested in a military path. He is leaning toward a double major in Biochemistry and German. I am, of course, extremely concerned because Biochemistry really requires graduate work for full potential.

If your son is a native English speaker and has decent grades and recs as an undergrad and is willing to teach an undergrad Chem lab or Calc class, he will not pay any tuition and will at least have health insurance for the duration of his graduate studies. He can be an RA and live for free.

That is what was offered my DS had he chose Guard or Reserve rather than AD. He was a Chem major who spoke intelligible English, unlike a majority of the Stem Grad students in this country.

You should check with the local Rotary and see if it's not too late to do an Exchange for a gap year. DS did so and spent the year in Taiwan. BTW when he did it, the cost was $250 to Rotary plus airfare.
 
There is also nothing wrong with enlisting in the military such as Kyguardmom's DS did. I did the same and it really helped with my own tuition costs, albeit, I did not earn a degree until 10 years later. I was a single mom, had a job as a Corpsman, went to school at night at a CC and then graduated with no debt. It can be done if one is willing to sacrifice and work hard.

Welcome to the way life really is.

I have the upmost respect for the challenges of single moms, and you deserve credit for your hard work and determination.

That said, my son who joined the Guard is not as academically accomplished as his twin, or for that matter, most of the super high-performing kids who might frequent the Service Academy forums. But he is certainly well above average. He has a 3.2 GPA, 26 ACT, Eagle Scout, Order of the Arrow, Red Cross certified Lifeguard who has worked since he was 15 years old (it's a twin thing). He also scored a 92 on his ASVAB. His credentials put him well ahead of many who enlist.

But it is fortunate for him that he was interested in pursuing the military option, because he's exactly the kind of kid that is most crushed by the cost of college. He's not the top of his class, but he's definitely college material. But unlike his twin brother, he's not competitive enough for merit scholarships, and we make too much for him to eligible for needs-based scholarships.

In other words, he fits exactly the profile of college students who will assume the highest amount student debt, with the riskiest outcomes, because the entry-level job market is so fierce. None of which is because he's a entitled, spoiled millennial or because he has clueless, helicopter parents (which I am most decidedly not). It is because of the fundamental changes in our society that have shrunk the opportunities for our youth and the cost of college is the nail in the coffin of the middle class dream.

That is the way life really is now.
 
The USC/Stanford/Cornell story is simply not the pattern. I understand that it's a compelling story because it was a personal experience -- and that many posters here may have seen that play out in their social universes. But it's not the overall trend nationally. It is not why we are heading toward a debt crisis. Most people go to the lowest-cost, public option and still incur debt.

And it isn't true that if you simply work hard you can graduate debt free. It can be true for an individual, but it is not true for the majority any longer. I have seen no research that indicates this claim has any basis in fact. I'm very glad that you managed to do so. There are plenty of anecdotal examples of people who did so, and they can rightly feel good about their circumstances. But there simply aren't enough scholarships out there for that to be a holistic solution.

A fraction of the population can make use of those opportunities. Most can't b/c, definitionally, they are only available to a small percentage.

NewKid, I hear what you are saying but I am just not buying it. I have spent the better part of the past year and a half on researching colleges for both of my kids and what I have found out is eye opening. If you are a student who is from an under served population, (i.e. anyone except a white male), and you have good grades, most colleges and the government offer tuition assistance and in some cases pay for all need based expenses. There are some Ivy colleges, including Yale that pay everything for students who have need. I found this information on Yale's site: All financial aid is need-based to ensure that talented students can afford a Yale education, regardless of their economic resources. Yale’s financial aid policies ensure that 100% of every undergraduate’s demonstrated need is met with a package that does not include loans. But some students prefer to cover some or all of their Student Effort with loans instead of taking a term-time or summer job, and families may find it more convenient to defer some costs until after graduation. That is just one of many that I found, in fact there are so many I can't even begin to list them.

Here is Princeton's policy:
What's Great About Princeton's Financial Aid
  • No Loans: In 2001, Princeton became the first university to offer every aid recipient a financial aid package that replaces loans with grant aid that students do not pay back.
  • Approximately 60% of students receive financial aid: In the last decade, the amount of our average need-based grant increased by more than 90%, about twice as much as the amount of tuition increases for the same period.
  • An average grant of over $46,000 for the Class of 2019: In 2014-15 the average aid grant covered 100% of tuition for freshmen receiving financial aid.
  • 83% of recent seniors graduated debt free: Princeton's no loan policy has made it possible for most students to graduate with no debt. For seniors who borrowed, the average total indebtedness at graduation was $6,600.
  • $140 million: The estimated amount of grants awarded to over 3,100 undergraduates in 2015-16.
  • A reasonable expected contribution from students and their parents: We determine a family's ability to pay using Princeton's own need formula, with fair and generous individual results.
With that said, you can't get into one of those colleges unless you are willing to work as a high school student. You have to keep your grades up, work in your community etc. But, if you come from a family that has saved and worked and make a decent living, then your tuition is all on your own because all of their aid is need based and if you don't have a need you are out of luck. Hence, find a college that offers merit aid unless you want to fork over a whole lot of cash which most parents cannot do.

I am putting on my body armor now.... So, that leaves us with the mediocre (and by that I mean unmotivated, hand everything to me, I am too lazy to put any effort into my high school education) student who wakes up the day after graduation wondering what he/she is going to do with the rest of their life and then demands that the government owes them an education and a job and if they don't get it they will burn down the city. This is the United States of America and there is opportunity everywhere, even in this poor economy. Young kids have cell phones, internet, Play Stations, X-boxes (purchased and monthly payments made by whom???) and waste hours upon hours texting and fighting aliens from outer space but they can't go mow lawns, work at McDonalds, deliver newspapers or work study at the CC to get an education? This isn't the Great Depression where people are lining up in the streets for food. No one said it would be easy, but my goodness, get a grip! It's easier to just sit around and complain and blame others than it is to get off your duff and make things happen for your own life, and until that happens nothing will change.

Rant over...exit stage right :zip:
 
Back
Top