# Huge Student Debt or Not?



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/u...udent-debt-is-different-from-the-cliches.html

Per this article, student debt amounts have remained the same for the last 20 years. I had let the idea of huge numbers of recent graduates having substantial debt become fixed in my mind because of all the woe-is-me stories. But this article says that the stats don't support that at all. Only a small percentage of graduates have long term debt they can't pay off.

That matches some else I read where a man was questioning marrying a woman with a large stdent debt. He had almost paid his off while her's had grown, even though they started off with similar amounts.

It does make a point out of the large number of students not getting a degree and still carrying student debt. It should not be neccessary, nor is it even reasonable, to have the belief that a college degree is the only way to have a productive life. Almost none of the people I know, with the exception of teachers, have a degree in the field where they are working. And many of the people I know without degrees ended up in the same jobs with people with college degreesz they just worked their way up while the college graduates stood still.

Some college employee makes self-serving statements about the neccessity of college and a million head start nodding in synchronization.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

I have seen folks scrimp, use cheaper colleges and work to graduate with little or no debt and I have seen people with several hundred thousand dollars in debt. It generally boils down to choices. Folks can either sacrifice now or later.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Not one person is forced into student debt.

Remember these person going to high end schools are the brightest....surely they read what they are signing.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

The jobs just aren't there for the degrees once they graduate. 

It used to be when somebody retired or quit, a new person was hired to replace them - in this day of age with cost cutting and every company trying to increase their profits, when someone retires or quits, they are NOT replaced. The remaining people are asked to pick up the slack and do the work that their old co-worker used to do.

And there are many fields where they are pumping out many more college graduates, than what there are jobs for. 
I was on the school board for 8 years and during that time I witnessed downsizing of employees. The student population was decreasing, but the same number of teachers and staff were staying constant. When the state budget cuts came and started affecting the school's money, suddenly the administration found that many of the teachers and staff who were retiring or quitting, weren't needing to be replaced (even thought the board asked repeatedly in the past "Do we need to replace this person?".
At one time, we were hiring elementary teachers. And for two or three positions, we had over 120 applicants. Some of the people we interviewed, begged for a chance to teach. Even though they had their degree, the pool of applicants was much larger than the number of jobs - so therefore these people with teaching degrees, ended up having to take ANY job they could get.
Which down the road won't help get them get a teaching job, because you see someone with a teaching degree, but they are working at Best Buy as a Sales Person.
Many people go to college, just to go to college. When they graduate, they find they are competing with their classmates for a job, as well as the graduates from the year before, and the year before.


----------



## wes917 (Sep 26, 2011)

I have a student loan, not a ton like some but enough, I also wouldn't have the job I do without it. Was it worth it, at first I wasn't sure, but now I say it was because of how it turned out. Of course it was a lot of work post college that has afforded me the opportunities I have been given. There's no replacement for hard work.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

I've got a dual bachelor's degree. It was semi-required for my job...but at the same time, maybe one of the classes I took TRULY helped me.

99% of what has made me successful today has a TON more to do with experience, OJT training, etc.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think if student loans weren't so easy to obtain, there would be more saving and scrimping for college. But hey, just sign your name, get the money for school, when you get out you will make big bucks and be able to pay it off. That's what they are telling themselves, anyway. And the cost of college has risen faster than the rate of inflation overall, which demonstrates that umbilical cord of free money backed by the govt. has made the schools not be as efficient as they could be.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe all that is needed is a little more scrutiny of the student's plan for the future before the loan is issued, but the whole thing seems to have blown out of proportion.

I think at this time, learning a solid trade will pay off more than a degree for a lot of people. Electricians, welders, auto techs, plumbers, HVAC, all have steady demand and you can make good money.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

I didn't read it the same way (student debt amounts have not risen). The article acknowledged that the amount of debt is higher now, and that repayment period is longer now, but didn't tie the two together as the reason that there is no net change in the annual percentage of debt payment to income. Using % of income alone as the measuring stick, sure everything looks like an "upshot". 

Tuition has gone up at a higher rate than median starting income. Risk-free lending will do that.

Eta: the author also tried to lay the problem of low graduation rates at the feet of the institution. Aside from being a real fly in the soup of their "everything is peachy" argument, it just real bogus. The choice to attend, the choice of major, the choice of institution, is all on the student. Graduation always has been and always will be the student's responsibility.


----------



## Appalachia (Jul 11, 2012)

Cost of tuition is growing far faster than pay (if you can land a job)

Too many degrees pursued that won't pay you back (English, women's studies,music, etc)

The trades aren't a shoe-in either. Pay is way down there too due in large part to the Hispanic influx.


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

Michael W. Smith said:


> The jobs just aren't there for the degrees once they graduate.
> 
> It used to be when somebody retired or quit, a new person was hired to replace them - in this day of age with cost cutting and every company trying to increase their profits, when someone retires or quits, they are NOT replaced. The remaining people are asked to pick up the slack and do the work that their old co-worker used to do.
> 
> ...


This exactly. It sure is great to tell your kids they can be anything they want to be. I'm all for helping a kid believe in them self, but where's the reality? Didn't the housing market crash due to indiscriminate loan practices?!?! How is an education loan any different? If there's no market for the education being purchased than why lend the money? 

Answer: cause debt makes indentured servants, and they must feed the machine.


----------



## Gardensprite (Jun 24, 2014)

My daughter's boyfriend went for 5 years, taking 3 classes at a time, lived on campus with one room-mate with all meals included in the deal... he borrowed $30,000 and had a stress-free time and a blast ( and this included all tuition and all books and full meal plan- 7 years ago)

My son lived at home the first two years, lived off campus in student apartments with three room-mates and a shared small kitchen and small living area and cooked his own food from budgeted groceries and went to school full time for this past 2.5 years... he borrowed $30,000+. ( student grant paid most class tuition but didn't cover books - 2012-2014) 

Ok... you could statistically say that the debt hasn't really changed... but my son would have been out another $15,000+ on top of the $32,000 to live on campus with a partial meal plan for two years, not five. Would he have loved the camaraderie of living on campus with the resulting activities available - sure - it was a chore to get to campus, have few opportunities to meet others and try to join clubs that he hoped would be more of a social interaction than they were. 

Both went to state colleges in their home-state. What young person doesn't want to live the college experience and be out on their own - if the classes were truly preparatory for real life work and hiring - a reasonable cost education with the college experience would be a good social experience and solid ground for maturation to thrive in a future profession...but reasonable...not...truly preparatory...unfortunately...not as well...and unless they actually know mature people in a particular profession - the choice of degree has always been a difficult one for most young people...

Fellow student graduates with library and laboratory biology majors found work in a bookstore and Walmart...[the bookstore closed and Walmart laid everyone off and re-hired them part-time] the student's career counselors strongly recommended these majors according to "interests" - more likely to fill classes for - the school's profits - the lender's profits. Telephone sales jobs in my area (call centers) are requiring recent Bachelors Degrees and good credit for employment.

Don't always believe the statistics... they are statistically designed to "prove" the presenter's agenda.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

In the job I held the longest, there were two ways of getting there- to be hired off the street, a degree was neccessary but they also promoted people from lower classification jobs. So in 4 years, the same time frame or less these days as the acquisition of degree, both people were at the same exact place. 
The stats might have given the college degree holder the edge for life time earnings, as touted by the colleges, because they had less years of work at a higher rate to get there but the worker who went up through promotion did not pay for college. Seems to me the cost of college, taken away from the lifetime earnings, makes them much closer than it appears.
A college degree may be a "requirement" only because that represents what a high school education used to represent in quality of employee, and because there are so many superfluous degrees floating around, rather than a real need for extra training. In otherwords, employers ask for it because the standards for education have dropped and because they simply can.


----------



## MichaelK! (Oct 22, 2010)

where I want to said:


> It does make a point out of the large number of students not getting a degree and still carrying student debt. It should not be neccessary, nor is it even reasonable, to have the belief that a college degree is the only way to have a productive life. Almost none of the people I know, with the exception of teachers, have a degree in the field where they are working. And many of the people I know without degrees ended up in the same jobs with people with college degreesz they just worked their way up while the college graduates stood still.
> 
> Some college employee makes self-serving statements about the neccessity of college and a million head start nodding in synchronization.


I really think this anti-education mentality is a form a sour-grapes by those not inclined to further their educations.

In my own case, my college degrees made me highly qualified to purse the career that I chose, and I am now reaping the benefits in the form of affluence. That's one reason why we could afford to purchase our homestead land, which is already paid off, as is our home.

I didn't however accumulate large amounts of student debt. Some, but that was paid off in full about two years after graduation. I did however spend significant amounts of time down on my knees scrubbing toilets, and other jobs to support my way through college. I think one of the reasons why some kids today are in such debt is because they aren't willing to do this.

Fast forward to today. We are sucessful, have payed off our land, home, and have zero credit card debt. Oh, and I'm still good at keeping our home's toilets really clean.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MichaelK! said:


> I really think this anti-education mentality is a form a sour-grapes by those not inclined to further their educations.
> 
> In my own case, my college degrees made me highly qualified to purse the career that I chose, and I am now reaping the benefits in the form of affluence. That's one reason why we could afford to purchase our homestead land, which is already paid off, as is our home.
> 
> ...


I did but it still doesn't change the observation that it was clearly not neccessary as I worked with people who didn't as were equally affluent. 
Appropriate education is valuable- indiscriminate education is a waste. But colleges, the source of such stas, benefit by touting the education part.


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm a paralegal. For what I do many people simply started in the field and learned their way up. Most employers now want to see a degree for these positions. If you want the higher paying jobs a degree or certification is required. For what my husband does a degree and experience are absolutely required. So saying you can work your way up is not all that true anymore. Requirements have changed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

crazyfarm said:


> I'm a paralegal. For what I do many people simply started in the field and learned their way up. Most employers now want to see a degree for these positions. If you want the higher paying jobs a degree or certification is required. For what my husband does a degree and experience are absolutely required. So saying you can work your way up is not all that true anymore. Requirements have changed.


But the point is not whether they have changed but rather if they need to have changed. My suggestion is that it has become a kneejerk response rather than a need. Or even that a college degree has become a substitute for in house training, which then has to take place anyway. 
Let's say a business could train a person in a year but saves money by getting a person with a 4 year college degree (even if they don't have to do the in house training anyway, which still seems to be needed.)
It is not efficient to keep a child a child for 4 years for college rather than 1 year as an apprentice, unless that is the only way to get the needed knowledge. We all have bought into the idea that a college degree is productive when for many (not all) it is not. Too many end up working in fields having nothing to do with their degree . And that is the clear indication that it was not necessary. 
If there were not so many people avaliable with degrees, especially ones of dubious value, business would not "require" them as they are not really useful anyway.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

crazyfarm said:


> I'm a paralegal. For what I do many people simply started in the field and learned their way up. Most employers now want to see a degree for these positions. If you want the higher paying jobs a degree or certification is required. For what my husband does a degree and experience are absolutely required. So saying you can work your way up is not all that true anymore. Requirements have changed.


That's true. 
But part of that is an ironic side-effect of so many people getting their degree...



where I want to said:


> It is not efficient to keep a child a child for 4 years for college rather than 1 year as an apprentice,


Wait a second...
What?? How did we make the leap that going to college keeps someone as a child??


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

For my field it is handy to have someone with an associates degree. They know where to look for the information and know the basics of pleadings/discovery. It saves employers time and they like that. 

For my DH's field, well he's a forensic toxicologist. A degree is pretty required for that. It's hard to learn chemistry while you're working a mass spectrometer and be efficient and accurate.


where I want to said:


> But the point is not whether they have changed but rather if they need to have changed. My suggestion is that it has become a kneejerk response rather than a need. Or even that a college degree has become a substitute for in house training, which then has to take place anyway.
> Let's say a business could train a person in a year but saves money by getting a person with a 4 year college degree (even if they don't have to do the in house training anyway, which still seems to be needed.)
> It is not efficient to keep a child a child for 4 years for college rather than 1 year as an apprentice, unless that is the only way to get the needed knowledge. We all have bought into the idea that a college degree is productive when for many (not all) it is not. Too many end up working in fields having nothing to do with their degree . And that is the clear indication that it was not necessary.
> If there were not so many people avaliable with degrees, especially ones of dubious value, business would not "require" them as they are not really useful anyway.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> That's true.
> But part of that is an ironic side-effect of so many people getting their degree...
> 
> 
> ...


A child lives off the labor of others while learning to be an adult and take care of themselves. In this respect, college as done by most keeps that perod going for 4 more years. It's not neccessary to be so literal an interpretation.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

crazyfarm said:


> For my field it is handy to have someone with an associates degree. They know where to look for the information and know the basics of pleadings/discovery. It saves employers time and they like that.
> 
> For my DH's field, well he's a forensic toxicologist. A degree is pretty required for that. It's hard to learn chemistry while you're working a mass spectrometer and be efficient and accurate.


Yes- my point is that too many do not need the degree. Certainly not all- I really want my medical doctor to have, well, his doctorate. I do not need the sales clerk to have a bachelor's degree.
In our area there is an ad on TV about a man, who built a successful car dealership after he left high school, and his sons taking over the business after they graduated from college. I will not be around but I wonder if his sons will actually be as successful but I would wager that had they simply stayed with him instead of college, they would be just a good.


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Yes- my point is that too many do not need the degree. Certainly not all- I really want my medical doctor to have, well, his doctorate. I do not need the sales clerk to have a bachelor's degree.
> In our area there is an ad on TV about a man, who built a successful car dealership after he left high school, and his sons taking over the business after they graduated from college. I will not be around but I wonder if his sons will actually be as successful but I would wager that had they simply stayed with him instead of college, they would be just a good.


I don't know that I agree with you. I think stupid and entitled kids are getting worthless degrees because they are stupid and entitled. Then they are surprised they aren't getting jobs. 

Then you have people who look at what they are good at and how that would make them employable. They get degrees through hard work and continue that hard work into employment. They may take lower paying jobs to start but work their way into their field. My SIL has a biology degree. When she graduated she showed up at DCI and asked the boss there if she could do an unpaid internship. He told her they'd never been asked such a thing before but it sounded just fine to him. She did that for a few months and when a position opened up she got it. See, hard work and a degree did that. There were other biology graduates, but did they put in the work to get that job? Nope.

Stupid people are just stupid and lazy with our without degrees, that's my point there.

Now those kids, I bet if they got degrees in business management they'll bring new ideas and information to that dealership and it'll skyrocket. So they are actually bettering what their dad did. Course, maybe not. Who knows.


----------



## clovis (May 13, 2002)

I went to school, and remember all the people who borrowed the max amounts on their student loans. They laughed their heads off about using those dollars to buy wardrobes, cars, spring break vacations, and to party every weekend.

All of my spring breaks centered around working everyday.

25 years later, many of those people are still complaining about their student loans, and how they are continuing to make payments.

The student loans of today are far more generous. I know a gal that started a master's degree, and she borrowed $17,500 "for living expenses." This money was spent to increase other debts...and she used $3,500 of that as a down payment on a new car. The rest was spent on the fanciest of clothes, and at the nicest nightclubs in the city.

To hear her talk, she often said "I _can't_ make it without the loans." In truth, she should have said "I won't do without these loans."


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> A child lives off the labor of others while learning to be an adult and take care of themselves. In this respect, college as done by most keeps that perod goong for 4 more years. It's not neccessary to be so literal an interpretation.


No, I simply think you don't understand who today's average college student is and are instead clinging to a seriously outdated stereotype. 




> College classrooms were once filled primarily by eager students straight out of high school. But the vast majority of today's college students work, have a family, are enrolled only part time, or a combination of all three. This new breed of college student is reshaping the face of higher education in America.


NPR interview



> More often than not, colleges are not peaceful havens in the woods but rather, as Zachary Karabell writes, âone- and two-story industrial concrete buildings where millions of immigrants, middle-aged women, and lower-middle-class students are trying to obtain the degree that they hope will give them that ineluctable edge in the thrivingly insecure economy of the United States today.â
> 
> Karabell (who has degrees from Columbia, Oxford, and Harvard) wrote those words in 1998.


Short article at Forbes

Twenty to 30 years ago a student _might_ have still been a "child", but that was back in the day when you could pay most of your way through by working. Consequently, most of us "children" were carrying a full load and working either part, or even FULL, time. :shrug:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

crazyfarm said:


> Now those kids, I bet if they got degrees in business management they'll bring new ideas and information to that dealership and it'll skyrocket. So they are actually bettering what their dad did. Course, maybe not. Who knows.


Well they will certainly be able to properly graph the course of their failure. But frankly it will not be likely they will actually do better- their father was a huge success.

One of the people I mentioned above who got promoted into the same position as a college degree entrant did that very thing- volunteered for his first position until he proved his capabilities.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> No, I simply think you don't understand who today's average college student is :


Really. How enlightening of you to show that people who are living off student loans for college are really earning their way through school. And so polite as to correct my lack of understanding so pointedly.

And if the acid in this post doesn't eat through to your sensative insides, you certainly are impervious.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Really. How enlightening of you to show that people who are living off student loans for college are really earning their way through school. And so polite as to correct my lack of understanding so pointedly.
> 
> And if the acid in this post doesn't eat through to your sensative insides, you certainly are impervious.


I guess I don't understand the point of your snide, snarky comments but I do know that information can only be "enlightening" if one chooses to READ it. Given your response, I'll assume you didn't. 

The average student today is over 27, has a family and a JOB. They are not "living off student loans" any more than they were 20 years ago. :shrug: (Where does this stuff _come_ from, anyway? A few anecdotes do not a trend make...)


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Well they will certainly be able to properly graph the course of their failure. But frankly it will not be likely they will actually do better- their father was a huge success.
> 
> One of the people I mentioned above who got promoted into the same position as a college degree entrant did that very thing- volunteered for his first position until he proved his capabilities.


Mmmm. You're awfully hard on kids you do not know. Their father was a success. He felt it was important for his kids to get an education to continue the business. I can pretty much guarantee that he did encourage them to go to college, maybe he even paid for it. So if their dad felt it was important for them to do that who are you to say they're stupid and won't accomplish anything?

I say I can almost guarantee it because they went to college and went back to their dad. They must have a fairly decent relationship with him for that.


----------



## TerriLynn (Oct 10, 2009)

A college education should be looked at as an investment. A degree is the goal of the college education. If your going into a field that requires specific knowledge, then of course you need it.

However some of the classes that are required make no sense to me. My sons girlfriend will be a junior in college this year and is going into criminal justice. She works and goes to school and depends on student loans to make it through. However she is required to take a full course load to qualify for that student loan.....so she took an aerobics class. I understand her logic in doing it....enough credits to qualify...easy A to keep her grade point average up.....but how is that preparing her for the working world? 

In my mind its not logical......wouldn't it be in the students best interest to let them reduce their courseload, and eliminate the need to take unnecessary classes (only for the purpose of filling a schedule) if that were allowed she wouldn't have had to pay for that class in the first place and could of used that time to put more hours in on her job to pay for her other courses.

It just seems that there is so much waste and really it could be done so much more efficiently.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Most of the people I know with degrees are not working in their field of study and many are not working at a job that even requires a degree. I have a degree in economics, I'm a farmer. Most of the 4 years I spent in college were a waste of time and money. Especially since they indoctrinated us into Keynesian economics which is a proven failure and a farce. It is a poorly constructed justification for government and large banking control of economies.

After I graduated I learned more about economics by reading Von Mises, and Hayek than I ever learned in college. But in the long run I'm a farmer with a degree in something that is of little use.

My best friend has a degree in business...he's a waiter. My cousin has a degree in communications, he drives a UPS truck. The only guy I know who made anything out of his degree is a teacher, perpetuating the failed education system and living off of the taxes of the people that the system failed. Ironic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Twobottom said:


> Especially since they indoctrinated us into Keynesian economics which is a proven failure and a farce.


I don't know what proof you're talking about, but I believe there's a time for supply-side economics and a time for demand-side economics. Now is the time for demand-side economics.

To suggest that we can create consumer demand by funding additional manufacturing capacity is nonsense. You need to have demand first, then expand production.


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

TerriLynn said:


> A college education should be looked at as an investment. A degree is the goal of the college education. If your going into a field that requires specific knowledge, then of course you need it.
> 
> However some of the classes that are required make no sense to me. My sons girlfriend will be a junior in college this year and is going into criminal justice. She works and goes to school and depends on student loans to make it through. However she is required to take a full course load to qualify for that student loan.....so she took an aerobics class. I understand her logic in doing it....enough credits to qualify...easy A to keep her grade point average up.....but how is that preparing her for the working world?
> 
> ...


They seem to have the same standards as high school. You need a science, a humanities or public speaking, a PE class, math, English, etc. A lot of these are to try to help create well rounded individuals. My husband, God bless him, is awesome at the sciences. I once had him proof read an English paper and I made the changes he suggested. The lowest grade I got the whole year. That man sucks at writing. A skill he may not use day to day but if he wants to become published (and publishing is how you build yourself up) then he's going to need some writing skills. That's the thinking in higher education I believe.


----------



## vulcan500rider (Apr 28, 2014)

I generally keep my mouth shut and learn while on this board, as I'm not yet an active homesteader--just another office worker slowly learning skills and developing a 5 year plan to get our of the city and onto my own land. I've always believed that your opinion should be informed before you open your mouth. That said, I've got some background in this particular subject.

I'm always a bit dismayed by these particular arguments, as they seem designed to polarize people into pro-education and pro-life experience camps, as though they're mutually exclusive. Worse, I would suggest that they also fail to address what university education should really be about: academics. Universities should not be job factories; that's precisely the kind of thinking that's causing the whole problem of too many kids forced into taking degrees they don't want and too many employers requiring unnecessary degrees.

Yes, there are degrees that are solely designed for the job market, like MBAs (correct me if I'm wrong here, but I can't think of another reason for them). 

There are degrees that are more "marketable" like education, computer science, and engineering. 

Then there are the degrees that far too many of you could call "useless," which are generally the humanities/social sciences, etc.


I not only got my B.A. in English, I pushed through and got an M.A., as well, and I used student loans to do it. Why? Because I had a burning desire to. It was something I _needed_ to do for _me_.

When I was done, I entered the job market. I didn't hold out for something that was specifically in my field of expertise; I used the extremely marketable skills that I developed during my degree (research, writing, and analysis in particular) to get a job. It wasn't a great paying job, but I busted my balls, used every opportunity I got to learn more, and made myself indispensable. Slowly that salary grew along with my knowledge base and reach. When the moment came, I hired on with a different company that gave me the opportunity to continue growing.

I'm now 4-5 years out of my M.A. and making $75k. I'm also thinking very hard about giving that up and seeing if I can manage a combination of part-time work and part-time homesteading to make a life for my family.

Does that make my degree a waste? Absolutely not. I'll carry that knowledge and experience with me for the rest of my life, and be richer (internally, not necessarily monetarily) because of it. The key was that it was something that I wanted to do more than anything.


What I believe needs to happen is for universities to remember what they are: places of learning, not factories. Parents need to start pushing their kids to do what they want, with an eye to how they might use the knowledge and skills they gain to attain the kind of living they want. Your kid wants to be a welder? Awesome! Go to technical school and get 'er done. Your kid wants to take English Lit? Great! Just make sure they understand that that choice may not directly transfer into the working world, and that they'll have to bust their ass to demonstrate their skills and be willing to start at the bottom. Your kid want to farm/start a business/join the army great--put together a plan and get to it. Your kid doesn't know what they want? Tell them to get a job and take the time to figure it out, not spin their wheels in advanced education.

As for the student loans? I've got them. They suck--even in Canada. I accepted them as the cost of my education knowingly, took responsibility for them, and I don't look back. I am PO'd though, that our gov't chooses to make money off of them.


Sorry--this became a bit ranty, didn't it? Maybe a TL;DR is in order...

*TL;DR: University should be about learning and academic contribution, not a job factory. Don't take a degree if you don't have a burning desire for it. Accept that there will be a price, and you will one day have to pay it. Be prepared to bust your balls, no matter what you take, and start where you have to start.*


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what proof you're talking about, but I believe there's a time for supply-side economics and a time for demand-side economics. Now is the time for demand-side economics.
> 
> To suggest that we can create consumer demand by funding additional manufacturing capacity is nonsense. You need to have demand first, then expand production.


The proof I point to is the decline of our economy due directly to keynesian centrally planned fiscal policy. The gap between the rich and the poor, the declining middle class, and the reduced upward mobility that we have experienced which is in direct proportion to the increased manipulation by the fed and the rejection of sound money.

Your premise that there is only 'supply side' and 'demand side' policy just tells me that you can only conceive of a centrally planned economy with special favors and control being focused either on manipulating supply or demand. The question is not whether 'they' should manipulate the economy in favor of suppliers or whether they should manipulate the market in order to skew demand. The question is whether 'they' should be manipulating the economy at all. History tells us no. The great economists...Von Mises, Hayek, etc say no. The free market simply does a better, more efficient job of allocating resources. The decisions of millions of individuals, all pursuing their separate interests according to their own preferences, can never be replaced by central planners. Its the unintended consequences that'll always accompany any attempt to centrally plan an economy. It cannot be done as efficiently as a free market but it sure does enrich the people at the top of the food chain.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Twobottom said:


> *The proof I point to is the decline of our economy due directly to keynesian centrally planned fiscal policy.* The gap between the rich and the poor, the declining middle class, and the reduced upward mobility that we have experienced which is in direct proportion to the increased manipulation by the fed and the rejection of sound money.


Which decline was that?



Twobottom said:


> Your premise that there is only 'supply side' and 'demand side' policy just tells me that you can only conceive of a centrally planned economy with special favors and control being focused either on manipulating supply or demand. The question is not whether 'they' should manipulate the economy in favor of suppliers or whether they should manipulate the market in order to skew demand. *The question is whether 'they' should be manipulating the economy at all.*


Typically the way that's accomplished is by cutting taxes. But isn't that still "them" manipulating conditions?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

vulcan500rider said:


> I generally keep my mouth shut and learn while on this board, as I'm not yet an active homesteader--just another office worker slowly learning skills and developing a 5 year plan to get our of the city and onto my own land. I've always believed that your opinion should be informed before you open your mouth. That said, I've got some background in this particular subject.
> 
> I'm always a bit dismayed by these particular arguments, as they seem designed to polarize people into pro-education and pro-life experience camps, as though they're mutually exclusive. Worse, I would suggest that they also fail to address what university education should really be about: academics. Universities should not be job factories; that's precisely the kind of thinking that's causing the whole problem of too many kids forced into taking degrees they don't want and too many employers requiring unnecessary degrees.
> 
> ...



This is a really great post...looking forward to seeing more posts by you!


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Which decline was that?
> 
> 
> 
> Typically the way that's accomplished is by cutting taxes. But isn't that still "them" manipulating conditions?


I won't even comment on our decline. Its so self evident that it's not really something I would waste time getting into.

As far as manipulating the economy...taxes are a part of it though I would disagree that NOT taking people's property is "manipulation". The manipulation is confiscating the production in the first place. But the main control points for our economy are interest rates and money supply. Remember the lessons of supply and demand? Well those laws work for the price of money as well. Holding down interest rates is done to manipulate human action. Lower interests rates encourage borrowing and discourage savings. Increasing the money supply sends false signals into the economy that a demand exists where there is none.

If you ever get the chance I recommend you look into Ben Bernanke's dissertation while he was in graduate school. The premise was that people can be manipulated to spend, and borrow when they perceive the price of NOT doing so to be greater than the risk of doing it. The entire focus of the Federal reserve is in how to manipulate people's decisions based on the perceptions they ( the Fed ) can create. 

What better economists IMO say is that people can make the best possible decisions when NOT manipulated. These radical thinkers actually believe that allowing people to see reality might result in them making better decisions! Crazy but maybe just crazy enough to work.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Twobottom said:


> I won't even comment on our decline. Its so self evident that it's not really something I would waste time getting into it.


If you're suggesting that our current recession was caused by keynesian policy, that's just nonsense.

Remember that the economy fell after nearly 8 years of republican presidential policy, where huge tax cuts were made on the promise that supply-side policy would make the economy robust. The truth is that the recession was caused by allowing a dangerous real estate bubble to fester without any attempt to slow it down. The economy was already in decline while the Bush administration was taking bows for the prosperity that the bubble provided.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If you're suggesting that our current recession was caused by keynesian policy, that's just nonsense.
> 
> Remember that the economy fell after nearly 8 years of republican presidential policy, where huge tax cuts were made on the promise that supply-side policy would make the economy robust. The truth is that the recession was caused by allowing a dangerous real estate bubble to fester without any attempt to slow it down. The economy was already in decline while the Bush administration was taking bows for the prosperity that the bubble provided.


Nevada, the dangerous real estate bubble that you referenced was the result of keynesian policy. The federal reserve DELIBERATELY created a real estate bubble, in fact Greenspan is quoted as saying that we need a real estate bubble after the dot com bubble burst.

The bottom line is that artificially low interest rates, and easy credit from the Fed caused the bubble. Thats what keynesian policy does, its a boom and bust cycle that pumps printed up money into assets to create bubbles and when the bubbles burst they shoot wealth to the very top.

Your mistake is your belief that there is some supply side vs Keynesian battle going on with keynesians on the left and supply siders on the right. Nothing could be further from the truth, the failure of the Bush administration was its perpetuation of keynesian centrally planned economic policy. Keynesian policy has been the dominant policy for the past 30+ years. Our recession and decline is a direct result.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Twobottom said:


> Nevada, the dangerous real estate bubble that you referenced was the result of keynesian policy. The federal reserve DELIBERATELY created a real estate bubble, in fact Greenspan is quoted as saying that we need a real estate bubble after the dot com bubble burst.
> 
> The bottom line is that artificially low interest rates, and easy credit from the Fed caused the bubble. Thats what keynesian policy does, its a boom and bust cycle that pumps printed up money into assets to create bubbles and when the bubbles burst they shoot wealth to the very top.
> 
> Your mistake is your belief that there is some supply side vs Keynesian battle going on with keynesians on the left and supply siders on the right. Nothing could be further from the truth, the failure of the Bush administration was its perpetuation of keynesian centrally planned economic policy. Keynesian policy has been the dominant policy for the past 30+ years. Our recession and decline is a direct result.


The first step in fixing a problem is in understanding what went wrong. Evidently you need to do some research on derivative securities.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The first step in fixing a problem is in understanding what went wrong. Evidently you need to do some research on derivative securities.


LOL. Sure.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

The issue with the rising costs of college and the debt our kids are saddled with was actually created by the Federal government. This one really burns me up to be honest. Student loans are federally protected and can never be gotten rid of through bankruptcy or even death. Once the government backed them what happened? Banks started throwing money at anyone who wanted to go to college. Colleges suddenly saw a new sea of students out there with well padded pockets and they went crazy adding junk no one needs and raising prices to pay for it.* 

We went from a time in this country when you could work and pay your own way through school to a time when college financial counselors push loans on students because they can't afford the tuition and they should be able to just relax and concentrate on school. And it is all because banks are making totally secure loans and making big money in a poor economy because the Federal government made student loans a 100% safe haven for them. 

* http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/education/compete-students-colleges-roll-out-amenities


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If a person is qualified to get into college they should understand financial responsibly of accepting a loan. 

People think when I state the cost of thing AND I add in the interest I am being silly but it sure makes me thing before I incur debt.

Easy to take the interest rate divide into 72 take that number divide into the year of the note. Then multi the principal minus any down by the above result bingo that is the real cost . Now multi your hourly rate by .7 and multiple that number to learn how many hours after taxes you have to work to earn it... is it still worth it only the person paying will know not me or you but the man sweating to pay the debt.

At least understand the cost.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

crazyfarm said:


> Mmmm. You're awfully hard on kids you do not know. Their father was a success. He felt it was important for his kids to get an education to continue the business. I can pretty much guarantee that he did encourage them to go to college, maybe he even paid for it. So if their dad felt it was important for them to do that who are you to say they're stupid and won't accomplish anything?
> 
> I say I can almost guarantee it because they went to college and went back to their dad. They must have a fairly decent relationship with him for that.


Show where I said they were stupid. All I said was that college may not be as productive use of either time or money for some people. I'll even say many people. That investing those things in other ways in some cases might actually be a better investment for a person. 

The knee jerk reaction spoon fed by the colleges and universities is that success can only be had by getting that magic diploma. Yet almost no one I know, outside of some specific professions, is actually working in the field of their major, although I'm sure there are some. That creating a business or working a trade or many jobs in general can be done without it and most often is.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyo...-help-college-graduates-find-better-jobs.html gives the percentage of people working in an area related to their degree as 28%. Yet those working in a job reqiring a college degree is 62 percent.

Ignoring the 38% working in a job not requiring a degree at all, that still leaves 34% working in a job that requires a degree but does not require the degree have any actual training related to that work. And their standards of related field are pretty broad.

If that doesn't raise some questions about the neccessity of that degree, then it is only because we have been so schooled (forgive the pun) in that belief that facts can't make a dent in it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> I guess I don't understand the point of your snide, snarky comments but I do know that information can only be "enlightening" if one chooses to READ it. Given your response, I'll assume you didn't.
> 
> The average student today is over 27, has a family and a JOB. They are not "living off student loans" any more than they were 20 years ago. :shrug: (Where does this stuff _come_ from, anyway? A few anecdotes do not a trend make...)


Then I'll explain that telling me I don't understand is what I consider a snide, snarky remark. So if that is where you dropoed the bar, then my response would be easily be in keeping as a response to let you know that it was objectionable. 

And the issue started with an article that said that student debt is pretty much the same as 20 years ago. It's just received more press as "the next big debt default. " So your insistence on saying that the student of twenty years ago is the same as today is redundent. And arguing it even odder.

I do not think the average undergrad student of a 4 year public or private university is married and working substantially. I think more might fit that bill in grad school or in community college, especially a few years ago. But not undergrads heading to a 4 year degree. The recession drove some back to school to get training because they were not employed. And these might well be older folk. But it also thinned the ranks of the typical "seeking improvement" types too.


----------



## clovis (May 13, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> The issue with the rising costs of college and the debt our kids are saddled with was actually created by the Federal government. This one really burns me up to be honest. Student loans are federally protected and can never be gotten rid of through bankruptcy or even death. Once the government backed them what happened? Banks started throwing money at anyone who wanted to go to college. Colleges suddenly saw a new sea of students out there with well padded pockets and they went crazy adding junk no one needs and raising prices to pay for it.*
> 
> We went from a time in this country when you could work and pay your own way through school to a time when college financial counselors push loans on students because they can't afford the tuition and they should be able to just relax and concentrate on school. And it is all because banks are making totally secure loans and making big money in a poor economy because the Federal government made student loans a 100% safe haven for them.
> 
> * http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/education/compete-students-colleges-roll-out-amenities


I agree with you on this post, but in the old days, back before a person could file bankruptcy on student loans, lots of people were racking up student loans, and within a year of graduating, having them dismissed in BK courts.

That was the driving reason behind the change in the laws concerning BK and student loans.

IIRC, the Attorney General in Indiana pulled this stunt after she graduated, and got off Scott free, with not a dime of student loans to repay.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> The issue with the rising costs of college and the debt our kids are saddled with was actually created by the Federal government. This one really burns me up to be honest. Student loans are federally protected and can never be gotten rid of through bankruptcy or even death. Once the government backed them what happened? Banks started throwing money at anyone who wanted to go to college. Colleges suddenly saw a new sea of students out there with well padded pockets and they went crazy adding junk no one needs and raising prices to pay for it.*
> 
> We went from a time in this country when you could work and pay your own way through school to a time when college financial counselors push loans on students because they can't afford the tuition and they should be able to just relax and concentrate on school. And it is all because banks are making totally secure loans and making big money in a poor economy because the Federal government made student loans a 100% safe haven for them.
> 
> * http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/education/compete-students-colleges-roll-out-amenities


Precisely.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The first mistake is not the government. It was a person freely choosing to become over on debt. I am against the government taking over the student loans but it was not a secret. 

Lack of personal responsibility whether it is buying a home that is too much, college loans that are too much or buying into a load of carp that one is going to always have a better life with a great job that is not a given but the debt load is. 

It is greed followed by victim hood.

I have three degrees and I never got into debt only because of choices I made. I am not against college. I just can't accept that shifting the blame for college debt off of the persons who signed up for the loan is proper.


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Show where I said they were stupid. All I said was that college may not be as productive use of either time or money for some people. I'll even say many people. That investing those things in other ways in some cases might actually be a better investment for a person.
> 
> The knee jerk reaction spoon fed by the colleges and universities is that success can only be had by getting that magic diploma. Yet almost no one I know, outside of some specific professions, is actually working in the field of their major, although I'm sure there are some. That creating a business or working a trade or many jobs in general can be done without it and most often is.
> 
> ...


I never said you said they were stupid. You did say you doubted a degree would help them make better successes than their father.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The ones I have no sympathy for are the college educated idiots who wasted their time and money on some worthless liberal arts degree or such instead of following the less expensive and more viable path of an in demand vocational program.

A local fool wasted about $50k in pursuing some classic art appreciation degree before wising up, investing $14k in a government spec welding program.

After two years of training he has a job doing medical and space application welding fabrication earning almost $40k a year going on three years in his vocational field.

He is now one of the first to admit that college isn't for everyone.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> So your insistence on saying that the student of twenty years ago is the same as today is redundent.


Where did I say that?  
For that matter, you even go on to _argue_ _against_ my contention that the average student today is nothing like they were 20-30 years ago... 



> I do not think the average undergrad student of a 4 year public or private university is married and working substantially. I think more might fit that bill in grad school or in community college, especially a few years ago. But not undergrads heading to a 4 year degree. .


There's really no such thing as an "undergrad heading to a 4 year degree." The grad rate is less than 40%, IIRC, for someone who starts as a freshman and makes it to graduation. Like I said, you seem to be clinging to a vastly outdated stereotype. 
You can _think_ whatever you want, but the facts simply do not support you... :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shrek said:


> The ones I have no sympathy for are the college educated idiots who wasted their time and money on some worthless liberal arts degree or such instead of following the less expensive and more viable path of an in demand vocational program.


I used to ask people about that. The stock answer was that they didn't know what they wanted to do yet, but many graduate before they figure it out. You've got to wonder why they don't just go for a year or so to live campus life and get some requirements out of the way, then leave school until they figure out what they want to do. But I guess that brands them as college dropouts.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I used to ask people about that. The stock answer was that they didn't know what they wanted to do yet, but many graduate before they figure it out. You've got to wonder why they don't just go for a year or so to live campus life and get some requirements out of the way, then leave school until they figure out what they want to do. But I guess that brands them as college dropouts.


I have even suggested to a few young folks to consider taking uneducated laborer jobs for at least a summer quarter or two worth of time and listen to the lunch break chatter while evaluating their options during their viable employment investigation and at the same time earning some money and getting introductory resume entries.

One kid has decided that he wants to continue on as a construction laborer and instead of non directional secondary education either take night classes or work out a part time schedule with his foreman to approach architectural design using CAD systems.

His foreman explained to him that he considered following the architectural CAD path in the early days of CAD but decided that he enjoyed building it more than designing it and learned just enough CAD to interpret the designs developed by his superiors, one of whom was his classmate and went the white collar designing direction instead of the work boot and hard hat direction he took.

He also explained to the kid that although his CAD education is a smaller facet of his chosen field, he still travels the world with his superiors earning a good five to six figure salary.

Either way, the foreman has shown the kid that regardless if he chooses to be one of the crew building the skyscraper or bridge or designing it. he has options to make a good income and there are always old buildings and bridges being imploded as municipalities revamp infrastructures.

Another kid I am trying to low impact mentor is having a harder time going through his laborer phase and find viable choices but I try to show him articles in the various R&D and manufacturing/ fabrication trade pubs I subscribe to.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

The only place to get a TRUE "student loan" is now the Federal Govt. It used to be that banks could offer student loans with the same terms - low interest rates, no payment until 6 months after graduation, protected from bankruptcy filing, etc. Then the feds clamped down on that... 

My stepson went to college a year ago, and he qualified for the maximum amount of student loans that is allowed for a college freshman - $5,500. His parents could have taken on a PLUS loan (which is a loan that the parents are 100% responsible for repaying, NOT the student). Because of his age and his lack of credit, he couldn't get private loans without someone to co-sign for him.

If the student is under 24:
The max student loan for a college freshman = $5,500
For a sophomore = $6,500
For a junior/senior/etc = $7,500

So the maximum dollar amount of actual student loans a kid can graduate with is really $27,000 if they're in college for 4 years.

If the student is over 24 or qualifies as an independent (which is hard to do) the limits are higher than that, and there are higher limits for grad students as well. But for a kid who is only in college 4 years to get their undergrad degree, that's the limit.

Community college tuition can easily be covered by the loan limits for freshman/sophomores, and provided the student works and saves during those first two years, they'll have enough to cover the tuition for a 4-year school for their remaining 2 years with those loan limits.

I went to college in the mid-90's, and I graduated with the equivalent of 1 full year's tuition/room/board/fees in student loans. I didn't work my freshman year, but worked the 3 years after that to keep my loans low. Junior and Senior years, I worked 2 PT jobs - often adding up to 40+ hours a week - and took a full class load. Graduated with a 3.6 GPA. I did NOT go out and party with my friends, I had too much to do and not enough time to do it in. If I wasn't working or in class or doing schoolwork, I was sleeping!!

Nowadays, if a kid gets more than $27,000 in loan debt (which is the student loan limit), that means they took out private loans. IDK about y'all, but I know my DH wouldn't co-sign a loan for his son to go to college..... stepson got his grandmother to co-sign for him, but he scrambled around for a while because he didn't have enough money between scholarships, grants, and student loans to cover what he needed to go away to college for a year (full cost of 1 year tuition/room/board/fees was about $20,000). This year, he's going to community college instead, and saving a ton of $$ by doing so.

When I was working as an adolescent counselor, I always asked the teens what they planned to do after turning 18. Many had college plans, but that was it. They didn't know what job they wanted as an adult...they knew what they wanted to major in. So when a young lady told me all about how awesome linguistics was and that's what she wanted to major in, and I told her that was great, and asked what jobs that would qualify her for, she gave me a blank stare. She had NO CLUE what kind of WORK a person with a bachelor's degree in linguistics would do.

There are so many majors out there that are awesome and fascinating and impart a great deal of knowledge, but they aren't career-track degrees. What job is one qualified to do with a degree in Women's Studies, African American Studies, History, English, etc? Compare that to what jobs one is qualified for with a degree in Nursing, Engineering, Architecture, Accounting, etc.

I'm a prime example of where this goes wrong. My parents both insisted that I go to a 4-year college and get a degree. I had no clue what I wanted to do with my life, although at the time I was leaning towards being a professional dog handler. If my parents hadn't insisted upon college, I would have gone out and apprenticed myself to a pro handler. But I HAD to go to college, so I did. Having no clue what I wanted to do, I majored in Archaeology....I figured I could work at the Smithsonian working with the artifacts. Found out my senior year when my adviser was asking where I wanted to go to grad school that I'd need to spend 5 years digging in Kenya and taking classes to be qualified to do anything other than mop the floors at the Smithsonian. My BA was worthless :shrug:.

So I went and got a 2-year AAS in Veterinary Technology, which allowed me to work in vet clinics as a vet tech. 2 years, zero student loans because it was so affordable, and I graduated with the ability to make $10-12/hour right out of the gate (when the minimum wage was $4.25/hr). 

4 years of college, $8,000 in student loan debt, and a worthless degree.
2 years of college, $0 in student loan debt, and a degree that would give me over 2x the minimum wage starting out.

Of course life happened and I ended up getting my Master's Degree in Counseling, and went from there. But I honestly believe I'd have been better served going straight from high school into the Vet Tech program, or working for a while to figure out what I wanted with my life before going to a 4-year school.

There's no shame in a community college. There's no shame in working a blue-collar job. There's no shame in being a plumber or a brick mason or a landscape guy. But it IS a shame that kids are being told otherwise, and bullied by their parents, teachers, school counselors, and peers into going into debt for something they don't need.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

where I want to said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/u...udent-debt-is-different-from-the-cliches.html
> 
> Per this article, student debt amounts have remained the same for the last 20 years. I had let the idea of huge numbers of recent graduates having substantial debt become fixed in my mind because of all the woe-is-me stories. But this article says that the stats don't support that at all. Only a small percentage of graduates have long term debt they can't pay off.
> 
> ...


 ...................It simply goes against common sense for the authors of this study to assert that....."Student debt amounts have remained the same" , how in the world can that be true when the cost of a college education has increased very dramatically ? This evaluation doesn't doesn't pass the smell test , the folks who conducted this study probably are responsible for calculating the Cost of living as well ! They don't include the cost of food and fuel if memory serves , how convenient . , fordy


----------



## TerriLynn (Oct 10, 2009)

With my oldest starting a trade school this Oct, we have begun the process for financial aid/student loan application. 

Turns out there are 2 kinds of student loans, the first kind you don't pay back anything until you have been out of school for 6 months.

The 2nd type you have to start making interest payments immediately, and if you can't make those interest payments they can be deferred but that interest is then added to the principal and you are charged additional interest on it.......as we understood it to be compound interest, but in the banks favor.


There is a very LLLOOOONNNGGG online course that the student is required to read and take small quiz's on to even be able to qualify for the student loans, which is a good thing, but even so its very complicated and we are only partly done with it and I would say we have almost 3 hours into it so far.

He needs to borrow some to be able to go, but his plan is to live at home for a couple of years after school, pay the loans off the first year and bank as much as he can the 2nd. I realize that not all kids will be in a position to do this.

I have found the whole process to be a bit overwhelming and to be honest a little bit intimidating.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If every barrower gab to take a 3 plus hour class prior to qualifying for a loan 
The the person has no reason to complain about the debt
Then the person should make the choice then and there can I fulfill my end.
The lender has spoon feed the information to the person and in doing so competency of understanding the contract is in favor of the lender

Compency 
Consideration
Quid pro quo
and no duress
Age of majority

Pretty much a binding contract in the courts eyes.


Plans for my son changed when a local college informed ds an I that my adult would need my tax papers to apply for financial or loans -----because he would be under 24.

I informed her that that was not happening that I maintain my rights afforded the bill of rights. A stunted and confused look feel on her face. She asked how what they were requiring has anything to do with my rights. 

I have the right to be secure with my papers. The in formation is mine and my adult son was on his own. 

He will work and pay cash period and apply for private scholarships. As an adult he has responceablties. I will not enable him. He can do it. He just has to want it enough to work for it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

crazyfarm said:


> I never said you said they were stupid. You did say you doubted a degree would help them make better successes than their father.


Look at post number 43 which contains your allegation of my calling them stupid and my return remarks that say I never said that. That this is the last trip around that track for me.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Bluemoonluck, I wish I could 'Like' your post twice! 


> Plans for my son changed when a local college informed ds an I that my adult would need my tax papers to apply for financial or loans -----because he would be under 24.
> 
> I informed her that that was not happening that I maintain my rights afforded the bill of rights. A stunted and confused look feel on her face. She asked how what they were requiring has anything to do with my rights.
> 
> ...


I can understand not wanting to co-sign any loans, which would make you liable, but refusing to cooperate with even verifying your income? Seriously?!

IMO, that's a pretty rotten thing to do to your kid. 

Let's hope he's the forgiving sort and doesn't hold it against you when it's time to pick out your nursing home! ound:


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I can understand not wanting to co-sign any loans, which would make you liable, but refusing to cooperate with even verifying your income? Seriously?!
> 
> IMO, that's a pretty rotten thing to do to your kid.
> 
> Let's hope he's the forgiving sort and doesn't hold it against you when it's time to pick out your nursing home! ound:


ITA with Willow on this..... Is your son living 100% on his own/fully supporting himself, and you're not claiming him as a dependent on your taxes? If so, why did you go with him to the college to sign him up for all this stuff? IIRC your son has FAS, so I'm guessing that he is still your dependent, even though he works and may pay you rent, so yes, your income is considered when the time comes to decide how much aid your son needs.

Dependent students must provide their parents' financial information, while independent students do not. Here is the official explanation regarding whether your child is a dependent or independent student: https://studentaid.ed.gov/fafsa/filling-out/dependency

They made it this way because people were trying to scam the system and get more aid. Most young adults who are under 24, not married, have no children, and are looking to attend college are still being supported by their parents in some fashion. Since the children are benefitting from their parent's income, that income is considered when looking at the aid a student can receive. 

Keep in mind this is mostly in regards to grants, as pretty much any dependent student will qualify for the standard $5,500 in student loans. But because grants do not have to be repaid, they are reserved for students who demonstrate a true financial need....therefore the Feds want to know how much Mommy and Daddy make before they hand out the limited amount of "free money" that they give each year to students.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> If every barrower gab to take a 3 plus hour class prior to qualifying for a loan
> The the person has no reason to complain about the debt
> Then the person should make the choice then and there can I fulfill my end.
> The lender has spoon feed the information to the person and in doing so competency of understanding the contract is in favor of the lender
> ...


Seriously? Your son could have probably gotten a full ride with your low income and it being what it is. How could you put your rights ahead of your own son? Do you have any idea how much tuition and books are these days. This just blows my mind.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Easy, rights are more often given away freely vs at the blade of o knife. 

My son has a home I gave him. He does not live with me. He, while in high school has a well paying job. His income is greater than ours. He paid his own hospital bill His own heat bill. 

He is over 18 he will be 20 this fall and a senior in high school. His reaction to the financial person was ....I am an adult. 

Private scholarships and his savings should more than cover the bills. He knows this and I know this. Going to the financial person was not an optional as it was the first mandatory station that the college fair had set up. Used to be that financial aid was optional now the make it mandatory to talk with them. 

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. The goal of data mining is very important to this government. Question what happens when parents who cannot pay for the loans default.. maybe the family home, land is lost cycle down to a greater need for help cycle down further more rights handed over. So, it's for the kid and I am going to show him that if you can get a free meal (well if someone worked for it) then by all means give up your rights......no college education on the backs of some one else is worth pushing him to the dark side of dependence. And so people wish to use word and emotions to guide me into conformity of debt. I you see debt as a problem why encourage those you love in that direction. In earning it first he will have more freedom and an easier life.

So, I am the kinda mom,that while I was not the type of mom who had the option to abort him I adopted him and have and will stand by him. Helping him never to need me or the government to choose his path and to pursue his dreams.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Blue
My son is not my dependent. He is not on my taxes. He files himself the last few years. Where is the fraud if he does not plan on student aid. Yes he has fas. Most persons with fas are coddled when they are younger and when get older they have no safety net. He has lived working to be able to support himself. He might no understand how to drive a car yet so I drove him to the college fair. It was geared to the majority of high schoolers who are younger than him. He wanted to share the event with me because there was a time not that long ago when things didn't look like college would even be an option for him. 

He jokes that he just might have to sue to be an adult emasipated adult. 

He is not a child. He is a man. I am not limitating him. His success are all him not mine.


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

I don't understand why people are against a mom expecting her son to make his own way? he is a legal adult and legally responsible for his own debt and education. Maybe if we as parents don't coddle our adult children then they would make better decisions concerning debt and education?


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

I started school at 34 and have three AA degrees and starting my BA program this fall. I pay as I go as I work 70 hrs a week as well as being a single dad. I have zero college debt to date and no plans to acquire any unless I decide to get a masters.

My experience with college has been great. I always knew I was intelligent, yet the reassurance of earning a good grade is nice as well. I would say that in my line of work no single one of my classes has made me more able, but all of them have taught me to think outside the box and articulate myself better.

I also have been able to see how "educated" people think, and where some of their opinions and experiences have shaped them. I also see how my more bourgeois life experiences have shaped me. 

If one chooses an in demand discipline and then makes good grades there are organizations literally standing in line to pay for your college. I have received grants, scholarships and gifts to continue my education and I intend to pay those forward as I go.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Haw
Spot on. High five.


----------

