I Wear Pants;1284805 wrote:I would never get one myself but actually the stats I've seen (read a few articles last week for a class) showed that associates are actually make financial sense, especially when you consider many people will not finish a bachelors but could have done enough for an associates.

As for the student loans...I don't want to think about it.

When the bill comes due, you can't help it. Sucks, though.

I don't have any student loan debt thanks to my parents. I had a full ride for 2 years and then transferred to a private school for 2 years, with in state tuition for my year of grad school. Hopefully I can do the same for my children.

I Wear Pants;1284805 wrote:I would never get one myself but actually the stats I've seen (read a few articles last week for a class) showed that associates are actually make financial sense, especially when you consider many people will not finish a bachelors but could have done enough for an associates.

As for the student loans...I don't want to think about it.

My point exactly.

If you are going in to the health field, you don't need a 4 yr degree. I have a neighbor that attended the local nursing school, 2 yrs and $18000.00 total tuition, but you also can qualify for grants from government and school to cut the cost down. She said she had about $7000.00 in loans and made about $50,000 her first year. She was able to go and get her masters and then she decided go on to become a nurse practitioner, making about $110,000 a year, all her schooling was paid by the hospital she was working at if she agreed to stay employed there for 5 years after she finished school.

password;1284988 wrote:If you are going in to the health field, you don't need a 4 yr degree. I have a neighbor that attended the local nursing school, 2 yrs and $18000.00 total tuition, but you also can qualify for grants from government and school to cut the cost down. She said she had about $7000.00 in loans and made about $50,000 her first year. She was able to go and get her masters and then she decided go on to become a nurse practitioner, making about $110,000 a year, all her schooling was paid by the hospital she was working at if she agreed to stay employed there for 5 years after she finished school.

BOOM

Finished paying off our share of the kids loan this spring - hired a cleaning lady and put the rest into the IRA's

We covered all the kid's room and board expenses, while they had to cover their tuition after their first year - we wanted them to have some pain exposure if they messed around. We agreed to subsidize their loan payments based on GPA.

Daughter had a partial swimming scholarship for the first two years, which helped. She had about $18K in loans when she graduated, which we covered at 80%

Son of Cat Food wasn't so fortunate, but he (and the Dean's office :rolleyes: ) decided after two years that college was not for him. We covered a fourth of his loan payments, while he decided to triple-up on his portion. As a result, he got rid of the loan in less than two years. He's going to culinary school in the spring - as he really stepped up as hard-working, responsible adult upon leaving school, we're probably going to cover the tuition payments for him as a gift.

gut;1284800 wrote:I'd have her file bankruptcy before getting married. Like if someone was WAYYYY underwater on their house, just walk away. Takes like 7 years to recover from something like that, but if the other has the house and everything else in order you can weather that waiting period and not get crushed under that mountain of debt.

Some people might think that lacks integrity, but I figure businesses do it all the time. Bankruptcy law is there for a reason - use it when it makes sense for you.

I am pretty sure that you can not bankrupt student loans.

Sonofanump;1285021 wrote:I am pretty sure that you can not bankrupt student loans.

Not the federally guaranteed ones. The supplemental, yes.

Still have over $100k. Luckily I have the type of job most law students, in my opinion, thought they were bargaining for when they went to law school. I distinctly remember talking to my dean of admissions and expressing concern about the borrowing costs and him laughing and saying "what do you mean, you're gonna be a lawyer!"

I have no idea how the many, many of my peers doing document review and scrounging for court appointed counsel work and whatever else just to get by have any hope of paying their law school debt back. I saw a BLS report that projects 200,000 law jobs by 2020 and something like 400,000 lawyers?? My god what a nightmare!

For those reasons, even though I have made my payments, and will continue to do so, I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of government intervention before the shit hits the fan.

To me, promoting loans to develop human capital is problematic as a matter of public policy anyway because if the human capital turns out to be a bad investment you can't divest yourself of it to cut your losses. The wages out there aren't supporting these debt loads and yet folks, by and large, still see a college education as the primary vehicle to a middle to upper class life. To me, unless you're a fantastic entrepreneur or the cream of the crop, it does seem like you have to make a deal with the devil.

BoatShoes;1285031 wrote:I saw a BLS report that projects 200,000 law jobs by 2020 and something like 400,000 lawyers?? My god what a nightmare!

Hmmmm....Schools will say you can do many things with a law degree, and while they are correct (to an extent) does that really justify $100-$150k in debt for four years? Should they have an obligation not to sell someone a law degree that has no hope of a positive return on the investment?

Sure, it's a free market. But we have consumer protections in many other areas that pose nowhere near the same disastrous financial consequences. In some respects, they're selling these clueless students the Brooklyn bridge.

Computer Science, seriously. There aren't nearly enough people to fill all the job openings. Microsoft's been sending employees into high school classrooms to try to get kids interested in doing it because they need people that they can hire. Thinking of seeing if I can't get a minor without too much hassel.

BoatShoes;1285031 wrote: To me, promoting loans to develop human capital is problematic as a matter of public policy anyway because if the human capital turns out to be a bad investment you can't divest yourself of it to cut your losses.

Interesting perspective. I think if you get the govt out of the college subsidy business that the market takes care of a lot of problems. Marginal students aren't going to get private financing, and a [less] inflated demand would slow the rise of tuition costs. Or at least marginal students seeking degrees in saturated fields are going to pay a big premium to compensate investors for the risk.

Some people would balk at that as somehow inherently unfair. I would just say why should a student that hasn't demonstrated the ability or aptitude be entitled to cheap and easy financing?

gut;1285032 wrote:Hmmmm....Schools will say you can do many things with a law degree, and while they are correct (to an extent) does that really justify $100-$150k in debt for four years? Should they have an obligation not to sell someone a law degree that has no hope of a positive return on the investment?

Sure, it's a free market. But we have consumer protections in many other areas that pose nowhere near the same disastrous financial consequences. In some respects, they're selling these clueless students the Brooklyn bridge.

So long as the information on applicants-to-openings is freely available (that being the consumer protection), I'd say we'd be overstepping our bounds to force someone to not sell something to someone who is interested in buying it.

Again, an education doesn't have to be about a future career. We drill that into kids, but the fact is that some still do go to a university to become a more rounded student or just to get any degree, since their field doesn't require an educational background in the field.

O-Trap;1285035 wrote:So long as the information on applicants-to-openings is freely available (that being the consumer protection), I'd say we'd be overstepping our bounds to force someone to not sell something to someone who is interested in buying it.

Maybe, but we do more when it comes to mortgages and even financing a car. There's not nearly the disclosure and regulatory requirements in the admissions/recruitment process.

And it begs a deeper question, which is a societal obligation on the part of universities to "herd" students toward the emerging sectors. What really drives things - is it the demand from employers or the supply of students in that field? I think academia bears some responsibility to keep that equation balanced.

O-Trap;1285035 wrote:So long as the information on applicants-to-openings is freely available (that being the consumer protection), I'd say we'd be overstepping our bounds to force someone to not sell something to someone who is interested in buying it.

Again, an education doesn't have to be about a future career. We drill that into kids, but the fact is that some still do go to a university to become a more rounded student or just to get any degree, since their field doesn't require an educational background in the field.

The problem is that information is false in many occasions. Universities have become experts in hiding information or providing misinformation. It is more pronounced on the graduate level but it also occurs in the undergraduate level in some schools. It hardly does a prospective student good to rely on freely available information if such information is provided by a non-credible or biased source. I stopped donating to my law school in part because of the ridiculous way they are inflating their employment statistics by "hiring" grads for 9-12 month internships at slave wages just so they can show a high post-grad employment rate. If that school is doing it I can't imagine what the 200 or so lower ranked schools are doing to cook their numbers. It is disgusting.

gut;1285041 wrote:Maybe, but we do more when it comes to mortgages and even financing a car. There's not nearly the disclosure and regulatory requirements in the admissions/recruitment process.

The difficulty here is that the inability to find a job isn't the result of the education being flawed. It's the result of the market. And again, the value of the education to the individual may not be related to that degree's ability to make money. My degree, for example, was not for the vocational endgame. The education itself was the goal, which is a good thing, because the VAST majority of careers for a newly graduated person in that field pay peanuts, and the most respected programs are at private schools, meaning more expensive semesters.

I would have been extremely offended if I had been denied that education because it wasn't relevant to a profitable career. That wasn't the goal.

gut;1285041 wrote:And it begs a deeper question, which is a societal obligation on the part of universities to "herd" students toward the emerging sectors. What really drives things - is it the demand from employers or the supply of students in that field? I think academia bears some responsibility to keep that equation balanced.

I don't, at all. The college's job is to provide the education. For them to have the right to persuade would enable them the right to do so for their own convenience.

In the current climate, a student and his/her parent(s) have the ability to find information about occupational needs. If they choose not to do so, then it is certainly not the responsibility of the college.

Manhattan Buckeye;1285043 wrote:It hardly does a prospective student good to rely on freely available information if such information is provided by a non-credible or biased source.

I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of industries as a whole and not the employment percentages from certain schools. I agree that the latter are worthless.

O-Trap;1285046 wrote:I would have been extremely offended if I had been denied that education because it wasn't relevant to a profitable career. That wasn't the goal.

It's the goal for most students. And it isn't necessarily about a "profitable" career, but a career. There's a problem when universities are cranking out lawyers at double the pace of demand. Some of those lawyers would have made fine doctors, CPA's, etc...

The university definitely has a role in balancing that supply and demand. If we had fusion tomorrow, but no schools offering programs, would you agree that's a problem? And some schools DO control admissions to certain programs/majors. Is that wrong?

Maybe the problem is accreditation for various programs is handed out too liberally. Something needs to give when, for example, the supply of lawyers is twice the demand. Either accreditation requirements need to increase or programs need to control class size, or fail out rates need to increase significantly. Probably much more of a problem on the graduate level. I see your point with regards to undergrad, but I think post-grad level there needs to be adequate supply of jobs and there needs to be ROI. Lots of employers and students are getting bilked by mediocre MBA programs.

gut;1285049 wrote:It's the goal for most students. And it isn't necessarily about a "profitable" career, but a career.

By "profitable," I was including another portion of graduates into the problem segment.

As for whether or not that is "most" students' goal, that shouldn't be the concern of the school. Why I get the degree is my own business. The school bears no responsibility in establishing my motivation.

gut;1285049 wrote:There's a problem when universities are cranking out lawyers at double the pace of demand. Some of those lawyers would have made fine doctors, CPA's, etc...

I agree that it is a problem. I disagree that the problem lies with the university. The problem lies with the lack of information readily available to the prospective college students. We need to know the demand going in, and we need to know the estimated graduating class from a particular program across all universities in how it relates to those available positions.

Hell, if 400,000 people are willing to gamble on their ability to compete for 200,000 positions, then that is their right. Let them, but they should not receive any compensation if they don't get the job, because at that point, the information was available to them, so they would have known to pick a different career if that was their goal.

gut;1285049 wrote:The university definitely has a role in balancing that supply and demand.

I don't think they do, honestly. Their job is that of the "equipper." No more. No less. You wanna learn how to be a lawyer? A psychiatrist? A marine biologist? There are schools that can help you gain this knowledge. If it is for the purpose of a career, it is the responsibility of the individual seeking the career. THAT is where the responsibility lies.

gut;1285049 wrote:If we had fusion tomorrow, but no schools offering programs, would you agree that's a problem? And some schools DO control admissions to certain programs/majors. Is that wrong?

Not at all. It's their right to do so, but it should not be REQUIRED. That's the distinction.

gut;1285049 wrote:Maybe the problem is accreditation for various programs is handed out too liberally. Something needs to give when, for example, the supply of lawyers is twice the demand.

Sure, the availability of information. The clear availability certainly should be more present.

gut;1285049 wrote:Either accreditation requirements need to increase or programs need to control class size, or fail out rates need to increase significantly.

I don't think you cover all the options in this. Since we've compared this to buying a home or car, let's look at it that way. If I have clear disclosure on a house or car and I buy it, whose fault is it if that home or car doesn't last? Mine, because I had the clear information and chose to buy it anyway.

gut;1285049 wrote:Probably much more of a problem on the graduate level. I see your point with regards to undergrad, but I think post-grad level there needs to be adequate supply of jobs and there needs to be ROI. Lots of employers and students are getting bilked by mediocre MBA programs.

I agree that is what is happening, but again, I just think determining the needs clearly would be a solution to almost all of this. If the goal of college for most people is a career in a particular field, then knowing what field would give them an advantage going in, and then letting them make the choice, would seem to be the solution.

I have no student loans. I will need them for my last semester or two though. I'm not really worried about anything less than $10,000.

Pick6;1284686 wrote:Ill be ~45k in debt after I graduate. I fall into the shittiest category possible. Middle class, no help from the family. I dont even get enough in federal loans to cover tuition. Had to pay 2300 out of pocket this semester, and will have to do the same next semester. Probably will have to take out another private loan. 21 years old, fully independent from parents, and I get 0 grants, and not enough federal loans to cover just tuition. System is fucked up. Ill be alright, though. I feel bad for all the art majors.

Marry a minority so you don't have to save for your kid's college...

O-Trap;1285050 wrote:I agree that it is a problem. I disagree that the problem lies with the university. The problem lies with the lack of information readily available to the prospective college students. We need to know the demand going in, and we need to know the estimated graduating class from a particular program across all universities in how it relates to those available positions.

Hell, if 400,000 people are willing to gamble on their ability to compete for 200,000 positions, then that is their right. Let them, but they should not receive any compensation if they don't get the job, because at that point, the information was available to them, so they would have known to pick a different career if that was their goal.

I don't think they do, honestly. Their job is that of the "equipper." No more. No less. You wanna learn how to be a lawyer? A psychiatrist? A marine biologist? There are schools that can help you gain this knowledge. If it is for the purpose of a career, it is the responsibility of the individual seeking the career. THAT is where the responsibility lies.

O-Trap;1285046 wrote:In the current climate, a student and his/her parent(s) have the ability to find information about occupational needs. If they choose not to do so, then it is certainly not the responsibility of the college.

This is partially right, but also partially wrong. Since many institutions are publicly funded, they are somewhat responsible for helping control the supply/demand of certain fields of study. That's not necessarily a career, but if there are too many education programs in the state of Ohio, then the state can decide on which programs may or may not get cut. They do this. They should probably do this more.

South Dakota has been contemplating on cutting a whole institution because of the supply/demand that is in their higher education system. The most recent cuts have been in Health and PE departments, many states are cutting PE majors -- they are being phased out of primary and secondary education. Since this is happening, it's the role of the university to adjust to that as well. My institution just cut their PE major, those in it finishing last year, can graduate...but no more will be admitted into it.

But, yes, I agree that individual students and families should do more in investigating what field of study they need for their careers. They need to dig deep and find what will be the best route. The problem is, there are so many avenues and places to look OR so many people who have no idea. That's where the universities can be involved, in my opinion. I feel the same way about sex education and other "hot" topics in primary and secondary education...the reason why those have been brought into the education system is because there are so many kids who are neglected VERY important information in their homes. Unfortunately, today's family and home structure has almost called that to happen. Could the same be said for the job/career/major market in higher education?

gut;1285032 wrote:Hmmmm....Schools will say you can do many things with a law degree, and while they are correct (to an extent) does that really justify $100-$150k in debt for four years? Should they have an obligation not to sell someone a law degree that has no hope of a positive return on the investment?

Sure, it's a free market. But we have consumer protections in many other areas that pose nowhere near the same disastrous financial consequences. In some respects, they're selling these clueless students the Brooklyn bridge.

Law school is a sucker's bet, and has been for 5 years now. Anyone currently going to law school is taking a huge risk, and they're either aware of the risks or willfully ignorant. We've talked about this on the OC before (it's one of my hot topics), but the most likely outcome for someone entering law school today is $150,000 in debt that they're trying to service on $40,000/yr while reviewing boxes of documents in a dimly lit basement with an abusive boss and no realistic possibility of advancement.

The best case scenario is a six-figure job doing mindless tedium, constantly living in fear of being fired over a typo, never taking a vacation, working most weekends, all with the hope of making it 3 or 4 years so you can pay off the crushing mountain of debt and pretend to have a life at some point in the future, all while keeping track of everything you do in six-minute increments.

But people are morons. They watch Boston Legal or Damages, assume that's how things really are, and then sign up. Or they have parents who think that being a lawyer is a ticket to an upper-middle class lifestyle, complete with golf outings and a nice office.

Here are the circumstances under which someone should go to law school: (1) They are accepted in a top 14 law school (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, Michigan, Virginia, Berkeley, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell, Georgetown, or Duke); or (2) they receive a full-tuition scholarship at top-50 law school. Under any other circumstances, it's an absolutely terrible financial decision that will ruin their life. Period. Full stop.

Manhattan Buckeye;1285043 wrote:The problem is that information is false in many occasions. Universities have become experts in hiding information or providing misinformation. It is more pronounced on the graduate level but it also occurs in the undergraduate level in some schools. It hardly does a prospective student good to rely on freely available information if such information is provided by a non-credible or biased source. I stopped donating to my law school in part because of the ridiculous way they are inflating their employment statistics by "hiring" grads for 9-12 month internships at slave wages just so they can show a high post-grad employment rate. If that school is doing it I can't imagine what the 200 or so lower ranked schools are doing to cook their numbers. It is disgusting.

Apparently you've never met the SEC; ethics are out the window.

Law school is a sucker's bet, and has been for 5 years now.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with you. I've got a group of friends(who I rarely if ever hang out with) that all go to some podunk law school thinking they are all hot shit. They really do believe they will be making huge money after graduating and if they don't "Well at worst I'll get your job making far more money". The best part is, we hired some guy from the SAME law school and he's our QA analyst and he's barely pulling in 40k. After I told them that, we pretty much don't talk anymore. LOL :thumbup:

"Here are the circumstances under which someone should go to law school: (1) They are accepted in a top 14 law school (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, Michigan, Virginia, Berkeley, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell, Georgetown, or Duke)"

Re Cornell or Georgetown I'm still not sure I'd go unless it was full schollie (I'm surprised one or more of Texas, Vandy or UCLA hasn't passed Georgetown - complete diploma factory). Even at Columbia/NYU there should be some generous money involved due to the high costs of living in NYC while attending school. The fact is legal hiring is still down at even the top shops, and more so at the mid-range and lower of the top 250 firms.....the jobs that justify paying back the debt. With IBR it appears that many of these people simply won't pay it back and it will be forced back to the taxpayers. Nice.