Million Student March

I know all about Yale's financial aid. I happen to have graduated from Yale in the early 2000s -- I was a kid from a not particularly competitive public high school (some kids went to college, some didn't) who went to Yale in no small part because of their generous financial aid package. My three siblings all went to public colleges w/ scholarships, and I went to Yale with generous financial aid. I'm not unaware of the options out there. But the financial aid programs at schools like Yale or Princeton or Harvard or Stanford do not in any way represent an answer to the debt issue on the macro level. If anything we're creating a bizarrely bifurcated universe in which if you're lucky enough to win the lottery of entry to a fancy, private university, you'll pay far less than you'll pay to go to your local state school.

Again, I just don't think your 'rant' in any way describes the world I perceive, and I have yet to see any evidence presented -- beyond those terrible videos, which are nothing more than anecdote -- to support that view of teenagers and 20-somethings. I hear about these supposedly lazy kids, but I don't see nearly as many of them as I see of hardworking kids who aren't in the top 10% of their class and therefore are caught between a rock and a hard place. And I see some kids who ARE in the top 10% and are still stuck. I see far more of what KYguardmom describes with her sons and daughter.

I'm lucky. Sure, I worked hard, but I didn't necessarily work harder than friends of mind who got lower test scores and lower grades than me in high school. People who took on equivalent or more debt than me to go to our state school -- but it was decidedly less debt circa 2000 than it is circa 2015.

Life is one big crapshoot. Of course we can't control the outcomes. But we can do our best to control the inputs and the points of opportunity. We can try to view our fellow citizens generously, and we can look to research and data to inform our thinking. I've provided links to reams of data that fly in the face of the caricature you've painted of where the debt comes from or the reality of 'kids today', and the caricature painted in that terrible video. To me what you describe is a community of affluence run amok. Maybe you live in or close to a community like that -- I have no idea, and I don't disagree that affluent communities in this country have what can sometimes be a toxic culture of entitlement, though also of crushing pressure that I don't envy. Regardless, those communities represent a tiny sliver of the overall population.

I used to teach in public schools, my mother taught in public schools for 30+ years, both of my brothers currently teach in public schools -- these have been in extremely different communities, from LA to the east coast to the rural south. And if anything we've all seen a culture -- especially in the poor, working, and middle class communities -- in which kids are absolutely working side jobs, taking work study that's offered, worrying chronically about the finances of education, and feeling the stress of, as Kyguardmom very aptly described, a reality of truly diminished opportunity. If you want to say, "That's just the way the world is," then I would answer: "I'd like us to try to come up with a better world."

The portrait you paint of contemporary America just doesn't resonate beyond sitcoms.
 
New Kid said:
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". I
Click to expand...

Actually, the issue cannot be discussed or addressed until *all* underlying issues are addressed including entitlement and the consequences of choice and actions.

You have stated that you believe kids are entitled to a college degree because most jobs in the private sector require a college degree. The foundation of your argument has been based upon this idea. From there it went to affordability, debt and financing it. The foundation of your discussion is based upon an entitlement.

Your proposed solution is based upon avoiding the consequence of huge debt. From your arguments, it appears you believe a kid should be able to pursue college without worry about future financial consequences. When others have pointed out working and saving along the way, your reaction appears to be that this should be the exception to the rule. At what point did attending college without concern for financing it become the expected "norm"? At what point did attending college without holding some sort of part time job during the academic year become the "norm"?

Most of the kids I knew in college had some loans, worked part time during the academic year and then full time in the summers. I do not see why this is an unreasonable expectation today. I could do it back in the day with public pay phones and snail mail as my means to connect with job prospects. The exception was the kid with no job and whose parents were footing the entire bill. And for your information, I went to a private university.

This entire discussion started because the kids did not like the consequences of high tuition and debt for attending their current college. Instead of asking for hand outs, how about exploring why college tuition has sky rocketed, and approach the problem from that angle.

It seems to me the drive to "solve" the problem of high tuition is based upon the knee jerk reaction to debt and the perceived entitlement to a college degree.
 
I certainly haven't stated that kids are entitled to college degrees. I also haven't proposed a solution. I've actually repeatedly said that I don't know if 'free' education (whatever that even means -- CC, state-funded, etc.?) is the answer, but that I think it's worth entertaining the idea and working through what that would look like structurally without dismissing it outright. I've said that very plainly multiple times.

Also, at no point have I in any way disagreed that people should work or save. Seriously? Repeatedly, I've identified that lots of students today are working and saving, attending CC first, delaying college. All of these things are already happening. No one is arguing with that.

Do you really think kids today don't have part-time jobs? Aren't taking on work study? Don't have campus or summer jobs? Do you think this has evaporated? I'm bewildered by this notion that either I have dismissed that idea, or that it doesn't exist in the world.

The point I've been making -- that was made by someone else on the first page, that Kyguardmom is making -- is that it isn't enough. It used to be a way to pay a significant portion of college costs, but it isn't anymore. That's the financial reality. The financial balance has gotten skewed in the past 20 years, but especially the past 10. You can now have parental savings, you can work in the summers, you can work during the year, you can take a year or two off, and you will still likely emerge with a significant debt. That's the entire point. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions because this is the new rule.

It's not about kids playing video games and refusing to work and feeling entitled to college. It's about kids working and saving and going to a commutable school and majoring in something practical and still emerging with $20,000+ in debt.

None of this for me is about the entitlement of a given student. I don't have kids, I don't have debt, there is zero self-interest at work here. I have no interest in fanning the flames of entitlement. Instead, it's that I have worked in K-12, I've worked at colleges, I've worked in education policy research, and I observe a serious problem in higher education financing that can not be explained by arguments of laziness or entitlement in the 18-25 cohort, and that won't be solved by apportioning judgement on students currently saddled with debt.

I'm not advocating for the entitlement of a given individual to go to college. For me this conversation isn't about any individual. I'm advocating that, as a society, it's in our collective best interest to have a majority of students who can access higher education without taking on crushing levels of debt.

My exact interest is in approaching why the costs of college have skyrocketed, and how we can, as a civil society, try to manage them down. How we can try to create affordable options. That might include some component of higher education being free. It might mean something else. That we need to discuss this without rancor or name-calling is pretty much my point.
 
I work in an industry that relies heavily on skilled trades. These skilled trades are not cheap, the workers are paid well and those in these trades can, for the most part, make a good middle class, even upper middle class living for a long career.

Now go back not so many years. Back in 2000 we started putting money into a State Prepaid College Tuition Program, one year's tuition at the flagship university was $3400, we bought enough credits to cover 4 years for both our sons. Between then and 2014 tuition raised to just over $12,000. per year.

During that time the acceptance rate at the flagship was pretty good, a student with a 3.2 had a good chance. The universities in our state started a fierce campaign to get more interest in college. That's when you started to see a shift in the high schools. Programs like auto shop, wood shop, general construction and introduction to skilled trades started to receive less money, soon they began to disappear altogether. In their place began the push for AP Classes, college prep classes.

When my older son started high school in 2004 the principal talked at orientation about how the school will foster every type of education "The country needs skilled workers as much as college grads" Great words but by then there were no classes available to back it up. The push began to be College or Bust.

Over the years kids, as well as parents, began to buy into the program, college was, and still is, seen as a requirement rather then just one option. Union halls saw a decrease in new apprentice workers, it quickly became harder to find young high school grads willing to work in the trades, blue collar had almost become a dirty word. I can actually remember a parents comment to another at graduation when the parent said her son was joining an apprentice program, he replied with " Oh I'm sorry, did he not get accepted into college"

Back to the raise in tuition, college became far more competitive, that 3.2 would not even get a first look, unless you could hit 40% of your 3 pointers. It seemed like nirvana for the colleges, no matter what they raised the tuition, the applicants just kept coming. The state caught on to this as well, lowering the amount they gave the state colleges, why bother, there is a line willing to pay anything. The marketing worked, college was the only place to be and most kids minds the only game in town.

Back to the skilled trades. Industries like mine began to feel the pinch, if you could find a kid to work it was just until they could get into a college. All I can say is if Trump, in an alternate universe, ever got his way and deported 11 million immigrants, the housing industry would screech to a halt.

I do a lot of work with Work Source, see daily the need for these skilled workers and the shortage of people to train.

My opinion, we need a shift in culture toward education, slow down the flood gate of applicants to these colleges by exploring new options and making sure our young people understand what they are. Stop the loans to these for profit colleges, I use the term loosely, a significant amount of the debt comes from these predatory schools. If education dollars get spread out a bit, we could even see the price come down.

Sorry for bouncing all over the place.
 
Jcleppe - perhaps unrelated to subject of the cost of college, but...I work in the horse industry in Kentucky. Absolutely, if Trump had his way and deported 11 million immigrants, the multi-billion horse industry would also come screeching to a halt. Because we can't hire white people to do the work. They won't do it. It's been tried, time and again, and they quit after a day or two. Same with agriculture. By the 1970s, brown undocumented workers replaced black, Jim Crow workers who escaped the South.

And to circle back to the subject, I find it endlessly frustrating that the same people who advocate bootstrapping your way to success in college, in the face of tuition costs that have exceeded the explosive rise in the cost of healthcare by 200% while wages adjusted for inflation remain flat, are the same who blame undocumented workers for inequities that exist in our country.

I always tell my kids to look up, not down, for the source of systemic inequalities. I've likely doomed them to a lifetime of bitterness.

And I swear, I'm not a Bernie Sanders supporter. lol!
 
Jcleppe said:
Back to the raise in tuition, college became far more competitive, that 3.2 would not even get a first look, unless you could hit 40% of your 3 pointers. It seemed like nirvana for the colleges, no matter what they raised the tuition, the applicants just kept coming.
Click to expand...

More important, the gov't guaranteed loans more than kept pace with both the number of aspirants and the increases in tuition. One could say the tuition increases wouldn't have been possible without the loan availability--the same way the housing bust of 2007-8 was caused by lending to unqualified home buyers, thereby bidding up house prices. The house of cards was based on a phantom guarantee of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
 
cb7893 said:
More important, the gov't guaranteed loans more than kept pace with both the number of aspirants and the increases in tuition. One could say the tuition increases wouldn't have been possible without the loan availability--the same way the housing bust of 2007-8 was caused by lending to unqualified home buyers, thereby bidding up house prices. The house of cards was based on a phantom guarantee of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said that better myself.

I 2007 we were just completing a project and I was at the bank doing some final paperwork, they offered me an extra one million dollar credit line on the spot to start another project. My wife works in banking, we both just laughed....maybe even cried a little.... because we knew they were just throwing money at people and that house was going to come crashing down. We politely declined the offer.....morale of the story was that I kept my business through the recession while those that gobbled up the cash lost theirs.

I honestly believe that the willingness to lend vast amounts to students has some to do with the rise in cost of tuition. They have done a good job of selling that since you can borrow what you need, don't worry how much it costs.
 
New Kid said:
I'm not advocating for the entitlement of a given individual to go to college. For me this conversation isn't about any individual. I'm advocating that, as a society, it's in our collective best interest to have a majority of students who can access higher education without taking on crushing levels of debt.

My exact interest is in approaching why the costs of college have skyrocketed, and how we can, as a civil society, try to manage them down. How we can try to create affordable options. That might include some component of higher education being free. It might mean something else. That we need to discuss this without rancor or name-calling is pretty much my point.
Click to expand...

What's the reasonable or acceptable number of students that should access higher education? Should everyone attend college, should only students who wants to attend college, or should only qualified students attend college. On a side note, why do colleges have remedial classes for freshmen?

I think we can manage the college cost if we can prevent students that have no business attending college attend college. If we want to discuss managing rise of college tuition, everything should be on the table.
 
MemberLG said:
I think we can manage the college cost if we can prevent students that have no business attending college attend college. If we want to discuss managing rise of college tuition, everything should be on the table.
Click to expand...

Great point, as long as we make options known and promote those options such as VocTec, Trade Schools, and Apprenticeships to those students that don't attend college, something that is sorely lacking in our schools today. And I think your right, if this is a conversation people want to have then everything should be explored.
 
Jcleppe said:
I work in an industry that relies heavily on skilled trades. These skilled trades are not cheap, the workers are paid well and those in these trades can, for the most part, make a good middle class, even upper middle class living for a long career.

Now go back not so many years. Back in 2000 we started putting money into a State Prepaid College Tuition Program, one year's tuition at the flagship university was $3400, we bought enough credits to cover 4 years for both our sons. Between then and 2014 tuition raised to just over $12,000. per year.

During that time the acceptance rate at the flagship was pretty good, a student with a 3.2 had a good chance. The universities in our state started a fierce campaign to get more interest in college. That's when you started to see a shift in the high schools. Programs like auto shop, wood shop, general construction and introduction to skilled trades started to receive less money, soon they began to disappear altogether. In their place began the push for AP Classes, college prep classes.

When my older son started high school in 2004 the principal talked at orientation about how the school will foster every type of education "The country needs skilled workers as much as college grads" Great words but by then there were no classes available to back it up. The push began to be College or Bust.

Over the years kids, as well as parents, began to buy into the program, college was, and still is, seen as a requirement rather then just one option. Union halls saw a decrease in new apprentice workers, it quickly became harder to find young high school grads willing to work in the trades, blue collar had almost become a dirty word. I can actually remember a parents comment to another at graduation when the parent said her son was joining an apprentice program, he replied with " Oh I'm sorry, did he not get accepted into college"

Back to the raise in tuition, college became far more competitive, that 3.2 would not even get a first look, unless you could hit 40% of your 3 pointers. It seemed like nirvana for the colleges, no matter what they raised the tuition, the applicants just kept coming. The state caught on to this as well, lowering the amount they gave the state colleges, why bother, there is a line willing to pay anything. The marketing worked, college was the only place to be and most kids minds the only game in town.

Back to the skilled trades. Industries like mine began to feel the pinch, if you could find a kid to work it was just until they could get into a college. All I can say is if Trump, in an alternate universe, ever got his way and deported 11 million immigrants, the housing industry would screech to a halt.

I do a lot of work with Work Source, see daily the need for these skilled workers and the shortage of people to train.

My opinion, we need a shift in culture toward education, slow down the flood gate of applicants to these colleges by exploring new options and making sure our young people understand what they are. Stop the loans to these for profit colleges, I use the term loosely, a significant amount of the debt comes from these predatory schools. If education dollars get spread out a bit, we could even see the price come down.

Sorry for bouncing all over the place.
Click to expand...

This whole notion that the trades is somehow less is very disturbing. My son went to school with a kid who loved motors and went to school to be an auto mechanic. His parents, a teacher and banker were upset and embarrassed by his choice.

Without the trades, the US wouldn't be where it is now. Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, etc. etc. etc. are really the foundation of modern society. Without them, our infrastructure would collapse.
 
Jcleppe said:
Couldn't have said that better myself.

I 2007 we were just completing a project and I was at the bank doing some final paperwork, they offered me an extra one million dollar credit line on the spot to start another project. My wife works in banking, we both just laughed....maybe even cried a little.... because we knew they were just throwing money at people and that house was going to come crashing down. We politely declined the offer.....morale of the story was that I kept my business through the recession while those that gobbled up the cash lost theirs.

I honestly believe that the willingness to lend vast amounts to students has some to do with the rise in cost of tuition. They have done a good job of selling that since you can borrow what you need, don't worry how much it costs.
Click to expand...

I believe that the insane increase in college tuition is a direct result of Government involvement in the student loan process and the promise of "cheap" loans to students; now they want to make more money more available, what will that do for tuition?
 
MombaBomba said:
This whole notion that the trades is somehow less is very disturbing. My son went to school with a kid who loved motors and went to school to be an auto mechanic. His parents, a teacher and banker were upset and embarrassed by his choice.
Click to expand...

Parents are probably the first place to start exploring.
 
MombaBomba said:
This whole notion that the trades is somehow less is very disturbing. My son went to school with a kid who loved motors and went to school to be an auto mechanic. His parents, a teacher and banker were upset and embarrassed by his choice.

Without the trades, the US wouldn't be where it is now. Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, etc. etc. etc. are really the foundation of modern society. Without them, our infrastructure would collapse.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you have not worked as an auto mechanic. Let me enlighten you. My husband is a General Motors Master Technician. Early in his career, he was Top 100 in the country. He's very, very talented.

I won't speak to plumbers, electricians, etc - they all have their stereotypes... but being an auto mechanic sucks. People always assume they are being cheated, not understanding that a car is a complex piece of machinery that is not simple to diagnose and repair. What they may forgive in their doctor, they do not in their mechanic. And in some cases, yes, they can be forgiven for being skeptical. But more times than not, they are wrong.

But anyway, auto mechanics work on a flat-rate pay scale. For the sake of clarity, this roughly means they are paid 1/2 hour to change oil, whether it takes them 15 minutes or 1 hour. Diagnosing and repairing an intermittent electrical problem may take 12 hours, but they may only be paid for 2 hours. It just depends. I know you all are a very smart group of people, so I don't have to elaborate on how the flat rate system can be both bad and good, but definitely skews to the quick fix.

Being an auto mechanic is also a very physical and dirty job. Pulling the wheels off of an SUV to check the brakes - those things are 100 lbs each - then twisting and turning to get under a car, etc... you get my point. That's all okay when you're younger, but it takes its toll over time. Not to mention getting your hands dirty with oil and the breathing the fumes in a contained shop. Not quite being a coal miner, but you get my point.

All that said, yes, trades like being an auto mechanic are foundational and necessary. Back when my husband started a good tech could make 80-90K. Now (remembering the bankruptcy of GM, etc.) they are fortunate to top out at $50 - $60K - the really good, healthy ones with excellent time management at a good shop that gets work in.

All to say, it sounds so good to encourage kids to get into to trades. But, not something you'd brag about at cocktail parties. And also, as New Kid has pointed out, another example of diminishing opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Kyguardmom said:
All to say, it sounds so good to encourage kids to get into to trades. But, not something you'd brag about at cocktail parties. And also, as New Kid has pointed out, another example of diminishing opportunities.
Click to expand...

Having a job beats not having a job. Working is better than not be able to brag at cocktail parties. As much as we wants things to be better for our kids, the future don't look bright regardless what type of education our kids attain.
 
Kyguardmom said:
MombaBomba said:
This whole notion that the trades is somehow less is very disturbing. My son went to school with a kid who loved motors and went to school to be an auto mechanic. His parents, a teacher and banker were upset and embarrassed by his choice.

Without the trades, the US wouldn't be where it is now. Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, etc. etc. etc. are really the foundation of modern society. Without them, our infrastructure would collapse.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you have not worked as an auto mechanic. Let me enlighten you. My husband is a General Motors Master Technician. Early in his career, he was Top 100 in the country. He's very, very talented.

I won't speak to plumbers, electricians, etc - they all have their stereotypes... but being an auto mechanic sucks. People always assume they are being cheated, not understanding that a car is a complex piece of machinery that is not simple to diagnose and repair. What they may forgive in their doctor, they do not in their mechanic. And in some cases, yes, they can be forgiven for being skeptical. But more times than not, they are wrong.

But anyway, auto mechanics work on a flat-rate pay scale. For the sake of clarity, this roughly means they are paid 1/2 hour to change oil, whether it takes them 15 minutes or 1 hour. Diagnosing and repairing an intermittent electrical problem may take 12 hours, but they may only be paid for 2 hours. It just depends. I know you all are a very smart group of people, so I don't have to elaborate on how the flat rate system can be both bad and good, but definitely skews to the quick fix.

Being an auto mechanic is also a very physical and dirty job. Pulling the wheels off of an SUV to check the brakes - those things are 100 lbs each - then twisting and turning to get under a car, etc... you get my point. That's all okay when you're younger, but it takes its toll over time. Not to mention getting your hands dirty with oil and the breathing the fumes in a contained shop. Not quite being a coal miner, but you get my point.

All that said, yes, trades like being an auto mechanic are foundational and necessary. Back when my husband started a good tech could make 80-90K. Now (remembering the bankruptcy of GM, etc.) they are fortunate to top out at $50 - $60K - the really good, healthy ones with excellent time management at a good shop that gets work in.

All to say, it sounds so good to encourage kids to get into to trades. But, not something you'd brag about at cocktail parties. And also, as New Kid has pointed out, another example of diminishing opportunities.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you made assumptions about my life and experiences. It is probably a good idea NOT to make any assumptions regarding a forum member's knowledge or experience. I really don't need a lecture regarding a profession my brother in law is involved in.

I suspect the forgiveness for doctors isn't all that high considering the cost of malpractice insurance and the number of malpractice cases.

And frankly, I find the whole elitist attitude disgusting. I avoid associating with people who look down upon those who work a trade or with their hands. If it is honest work, then it is honorable work and nothing to be ashamed of.
 
MombaBomba - I clearly need to not post comments after imbibing. My intention was not to judge, but to share. Sorry. :)

Is imbibing are word?
 
Last edited:
You pretty clearly seemed to be sharing rather than judging, Kyguardmom, even if you may have worded some of it imperfectly. There was one line within many about cocktail parties, which was, I'll point out, initially brought up by Momba.

I know people who work in what we're calling trades -- plumber, machinist, construction -- and I know people who don't. Lord knows, I personally have way more respect for the work of my friends who are plumbers and builders than my friends who are in finance or consulting, by and large. But that doesn't change the factual make-up of today's debt-holders, or the labor market that we're anticipating seeing for the next 10 to 20 years.

So for the sake of beating a really dead (but seemingly invisible) horse, I'll point out that if you look it up, you'll see that getting an Associate's degree in auto tech costs on average $15,000 - $30,000. Just google "ITT Tech" and "debt" -- people are leaving their programs with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. These are the current "trade school" options that keep being touted. They're part of the problem.

Sure, ok, in an ideal world you wouldn't go to ITT tech, you wouldn't need to, you could get proper vo-tech prep at your high school. But that hardly exists anymore, and partially that's because those programs were pricey to maintain in K-12 -- and since that's not anticipated to be a growth area of the economy (not b/c of elitism but b/c labor economists and statisticians anticipate that being a diminishing pool of jobs b/c of technological advances) cash-strapped districts aren't likely to plunk down the large outlays needed to outfit the labs needed. Similarly, it'd be great if everyone could just get on-the-job training. Does that happen sometimes? Sure. Is that the rule? No. If an employer has the opportunity to hire someone who's been trained on his/her own dime, they generally will.

That's why basic research, some of which I shared on previous pages, indicates that even people who go into the 'trades' -- fields in which you traditionally didn't necessarily need higher ed -- now often have to get at least a certificate, or maybe an associates to be competitive for jobs.

And even more pertinent: labor projections show that job growth into the future will not be centered in the trades. This is not because of elitism or snobbery or taste, but because our economy has transitioned from being manufacturing and maintenance based to being information based. Significant growth is anticipated in areas that are information related -- IT, etc. -- or service/care related -- health care, etc. Construction/building is one of the main exceptions, though again, that just means that CCs and universities and for-profits have created more construction management programs, and so forth. Same with advances in energy technology.

That's generally the best guess about how future is going to work. People on both sides of the political aisle generally acknowledge it to be the case.

I completely agree that the current loan availability/loose financing systems have contributed to -- maybe even created -- the problem. No particular argument there. But so too has the privatization of public higher ed by year-by-year cuts in funding. So too has lack of oversight by the predatory for-profits, which Jcleppe highlighted. They are an increasing part of the debt problem and have the highest default rates, and we're barely regulating them.

So the question becomes: how do we fix the problem? I'm of a mind to think that managing down the profit-motive of higher ed -- at least partially -- could be a piece of the puzzle. I'm well aware that other people might disagree with that b/c of fundamental beliefs in how to manage structural problems. That's an argument worth having.

But this whole -- snobbery, entitlement, lazy kids, women's studies & ceramics majors -- is a distraction from the actual issues at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top