25 years old and deep in debt

[garbon]

But garbon, you are missing my point.

I am sure that if you overall look at how students from Arizona do in their career compared to students from Stanford, the ones from Stanford do better. But that is because Stanford by its nature selects only high achievers to begin with.

But that is not what we are comparing - what we are comparing is how students who could get into Stanford but go to a more affordable school do compared to those who go to Stanford.

The people who can get into Stanford are high achievers, as a group. I submit that as a group they do well because as a group they are smarter, more motivated, and generally going to do well regardless of where they actually go, because after that first job, what matters is how you perform, not what school you attended.

If you are in that high achieving group out of high school, your long term results will be driven by your performance on the job. You can be lazy and unsociable, and that shiny degree might get you in some doors the lazy and unsociable guy from Arizona could not get in...but it won't help you stay there. You will be gone, or not progressing, no matter where your degree was from if you cannot perform.

And if you can, you will progress and have a good career regardless. Because nobody will care you went to Arizona vice Stanford if you are productive.

I'd agree that those driven will always find a way to make it work (even without school) but I'm not sure I'm prepared to agree that in the long-term the average individual who was accepted to a top school but went to a middling school instead will have the same outcome.  Not that they can't and not that their outcome will be bad but that it won't typically align with what would have happened had they went to the top school.

Of course that does indeed vary greatly based on the field they choose to enter and their aspirations in their field - so for many actual individuals going to the middling school instead will suffice...especially if we're looking at future salary as the sole metric.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem we have now is largely a function of the government stepping in in the first place, creating the guanranteed student loan program, which has had the entirely predictable effect of driving tuition prices through the roof while at the same time giving access to insane amounts of lending to people who have no need to show that they actually have a real need for it or can pay it back.

It is ironic that those complaining about this now are almost certainly the same people or the same type of thinking that in the past said "Hey, it isn't right that some people cannot afford elite universities! The government ought to guarantee their ability to borrow any amount of money necessary to pay for any school they might wish to attend! It is the only fair thing to do!".

Agreed it is really simple economics in action.
By subsidizing student loans, the government increases their consumption and thus the demand for the services that can be purchased with such financing, i.e. college.  So price goes up.  The only other angle I would add is the rise of the "for profit" colleges which are basically designed to exploit the government financing programs.

At the same time, many of the "elite" unis enjoyed such enormous gains to their endowments over the last three decades that they are in a position to offer extensive scholarships and aid out of their own resources.  So in a sense the problem that the loan programs were designed to solve (only Thurston Howell IV to afford to go to Harvard) has been solved. 

Once you get a tier or two below the well-endowed elite, the superiority vis-a-vis the state schools is questionable.  So from a policy perspective, the rational response would seem to be to scrap the loan programs and put those resources into making the state systems more affordable (or establishing a national-level "state" school with federal funding).

[Zanza]

the rational response would seem to be to scrap the loan programs and put those resources into making the state systems more affordable (or establishing a national-level "state" school with federal funding).

What are Obama's and Romney's policies on this?

[Valmy]

What are Obama's and Romney's policies on this?

None.  The plan is to continue the failed policies until disaster occurs.

[crazy canuck]

What are Obama's and Romney's policies on this?

None.  The plan is to continue the failed policies until disaster occurs.

I wonder how one unrings that bell now that the costs of operating a university have inflated along with the money to fund the expansion of that cost.

[MadImmortalMan]

I wonder how one unrings that bell now that the costs of operating a university have inflated along with the money to fund the expansion of that cost.

That's the real question. Too many interests involved now. Nobody wants to be "against" education. Politically it seems impossible to me.

[mongers]

You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.   

[Ed Anger]

I missed a goodie. Xavier and Miami? What a bitch. I guess doing your first two years at a CC to save money was too good for her highness.

[Admiral Yi]

Squeeze's comments make me think of the interview scene from Trainspotting.

[CountDeMoney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hWIr9_noRo

Ya suspect.

[Scipio]

If there's no discernible difference between going to a cheaper state school and a non-Ivy-level private school, why are there so many expensive private schools? And why is the system set up to allow young people to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree that's no better than one they can get at 1/5th the price? If it's so obviously a foolish choice, why does the system mislead so many people into make such foolish choices? Who benefits from this?

Why are there market forces that allow so many private expensive private schools to thrive?  The hope parents and students have that paying for that education will give them a better future.  The system you are referring to is called capitalism.  It is set up so that profits can be maximized.

The system does not mislead people.  People can make the bet Malthus referred to that it will work out.  Imo it is a bad bet and there are better choices to make.  That that does not make their decision foolish - they are just more risk tolerant than I am.

The market forces are distorted because the Feds guarantee repayment to the universities, even if the poor fuckers can't get a job at Mickey Dees.

[Valmy]

You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.   

Why exactly should we do this?

[KRonn]

At 25 years old, I have $188,307.22 in student debt, all of which is my sole financial responsibility. 

I'm just wondering when the nation is going to address the exorbitant cost of college tuition! No reason for the costs to be so high. Colleges are raking in the cash, professors are getting wealthy as are the administrators, and students start out broke. Even the government can't help much as the more govt gives for student loans the less incentive for colleges to keep down costs, since students are still able to attend their overpriced fleece joints.

[Ed Anger]

You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.   

Why exactly should we do this?

To laugh at the history majors.

[katmai]

You know, everyone here should just post a photo of their senior academic qualification, when they got it, how much it cost them and what use it's been to them.   

Why exactly should we do this?

To laugh at the history majors.