.
Feedback

BLOG: Who's Stuck Paying for College Debt?

The default rates on student loans at all-time highs, and so is unemployment for young adults.

I read in a Wall Street Journal blog this A.M. some interesting stats...

  • The jump in the measure of consumer credit held by the government comprised primarily of student loans since 2007: 368 percent.
  • Did you know that nearly 10 percent of the debt in this country is student loan debt?
  • It is old news that student loan debt has surpassed consumer credit card debt.

Wow! I had a single mom at our office door today stop by. She told me that her son got a great award from a small private Christian college, but that "he has chosen Colorado State." When I reminded her that she is the one writing the check, she looked as if she had no control over her own situation, and was resolved to go into massive debt.

So this single mom seemingly had no issues taking out about $30,000 per year in loans. But you multiply that by six years or more and the payment on that will be about $2,000 a month for the next 10 years after he graduates!

Single parents, please don't let emotions dictate such a weighty financial decision. Statistically, more than 30 percent of college students don't return to the same college for their sophomore year. By the time the student does graduate, their degree is from the third college they have attended. The average time it takes to get a four-year degree is 6.5 years! (The public colleges are the ones dragging down the averages).

The default rates on student loans are at all-time highs, and so is unemployment for 25- to 34-year-olds. And guess who is going to be holding the bag when the bubble burst? The sames ones who always hold the bag—the taxpayers!

Tell all your friends about our next seminar at our office in the harbor, 9 a.m. on June 16. For free seminars, WEBinars, and useful tools to help guide the college planning process, please go to GetCollegeFunding.org, and sign up for our "7 Mistakes Most Parents Make When Planning For College."

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mission Viejo Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Lawrene Bottorf June 11, 2012 at 02:02 am
I don't know how you came to that conclusion...I am saying that parents need to do homework when it comes to sending their children to spend 5-8 hours away for 12 years. Especially when it comes to spending tens of thousands and getting into debt for "higher education".
Dan June 11, 2012 at 01:51 pm
Well, I came to that conclusion from your use of the word "taught" in quotes, implying that kids are not learning and that families are "relinquishing their family values to be 'taught' by strangers." Also, your use of the word "indoctrination" in earlier posts implies that school is detrimental to children so I don't think it is too difficult to see how I came to that conclusion. Are you in fact arguing that families are relinquishing their values by sending their kids to school for 1295 hours a year when there are 7465 hours left in a year that are not spent in the classroom, only 17% of a child's time each year?
Lawrene Bottorf June 11, 2012 at 06:34 pm
Well Dan, I guess it all depends on your family values..
In this generation, are American children better off than they were a generation ago?
Dan June 12, 2012 at 03:47 pm
By and large I would argue that children of this generation are better off in many ways than children a generation ago, but in some ways not. You are very cryptic and vague with your use of terms like "indoctrination of the k-12" and drawing conclusions that the "entitlement occupy movement" and "students dropping F-bombs" as a part of everyday conversation are somehow a direct result of what happens in the few hours kids are in school each day or even each year.
And, you can never seem to answer a direct question related to your blogs and posts. Why is that? It almost seems that you espouse an opinion of today's youth, their parents, and their schools as complete failures deserving of your derision. I must ask you, why would anyone read your blogs and posts and say, "Yes, I want to send my college bound child to the GetCollegeFunding.org to set goals for the future!"
Lawrene Bottorf June 12, 2012 at 09:29 pm
I suppose that I am a bit jaded, as I do look at the data. Maybe you can too... :) Graduation data, affordability data, and student loan default data, etc. Public school is VERY different than it was a generation ago, and so is the product it is putting out. And the topic of this blog post is on who is paying for student loan debt. We can agree to disagree about our opinions, but thd "data don't lie".
tinytom June 12, 2012 at 09:52 pm
Dan, I'd like to discover who is closer to the truth between you and Lawrene with a Socratic go at it, although I don't no much and haven't followed education issues, but what the hell. You say children are better off in many ways than children a generation ago, but in many ways not. Well, can you give a couple of examples of how they are better off, and an example of how not?
tinytom June 12, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Sorry, can you give an example of how children are better off today in education than a generation ago?
Panglonymous June 12, 2012 at 10:41 pm
If I had a nickel for every dollar I misspent funding the "education" of other people's children, I'd have five percent of the total I misspent.
That is irrefutable. (I hope this sub-thread continues to expand.)
Lawrene Bottorf June 13, 2012 at 01:44 am
Don't hold your breath for any more than an opinion from Dan, as he has no data. Anyone observing the breakdown of the education system and the need that nearly 50% of the students who enter 4 year college need remediation cannot say children are either better educated, or better off.
Dan June 13, 2012 at 12:49 pm
In 1970, there were 7.4 million college students and the United States population was just over 200 million: just under 4% of the population was enrolled in college. In 2007, almost 18 million Americans attended a university out of a population of just over 300 million, or 6% of the population. College admission has increased almost 150% in absolute terms and 50% in relative terms in just less than 40 years. Yet in that time, until the last ten years, there have been very few nationwide educational reforms at the K-12 level throughout our nation. So, might the reason why so many kids need remediation once getting into college is that the colleges are accepting far more students than they would have forty years ago?
As for how things are better for this generation, just to name a few things.... Education for girls and minorities far better than it was forty years ago and more on par with the education that only boys used to get. Great strides have been made in math and science curriculum and the math that kids were expected to know to graduate forty years ago is the equivalent of what we expect 7th graders to know now. Literacy and reading instruction forty years ago was about students sounding out the words and now it's focused on comprehension and analysis. As for how things are worse... funding per student is far less than what was provided 40 years when adjusted for inflation. To be continued....
tinytom June 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Thinking on it, I recall the line repeatingly broadcast to become axiomatically assumed true, of it being so impt to get a college education in this new economy, which is the supposedly more technologically advanced information economy. And the young people whose brains/minds aren't fully developed, see the electronic gadgets - cell phone, i-phone, computer, and may believe it, not realizing that just being end users of these products doesn't require one getting a college edumaction.
But the hard truth is that while the military economy is advanced, the rest is going the other way. For instance today there are only 11 million manufacturing jobs in the US, (So Cal used to be an aerospace giant), and probably most of these are related to the military economy. And compare the with there being 22 million gov't jobs and it should be no mystery why everything is going broke. So it seems this too accepted line about all these people needing a college education is for the banks to get a govt backed income stream, which with the elimination of the Glass-Steagall restrictions are then bundled in so many mysterious ways and sold into the 1.2 quadrillion dollar financial derivatives stratosphere. And so it goes with health care.
Dan June 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm
To continue with how kids are worse off in this generation in the educational setting....
Education today has become administratively top heavy when compared to forty years ago. The number of special education students has increased dramatically and that takes money away from the general education programs and the federal government has never held up to their legislative promises to fund special education. Education theorists are constantly adjusting what is the best way to teach impoverished and second language learners and there has never been a defined process for their instruction and they have fallen behind as the number of poor and second language learners in this country has increase. These are just a few examples...
tinytom June 13, 2012 at 01:14 pm
Dan, in summary you list 3 things on how it is better now:
1) Better for girls & minorities. But later on you say it is worse for impoverished and second langauge students, (mainly minority), who have fallen behind. This is contradictory. 2) Great strides in math & science. Wow, forget the Socratic technique. I could look some stuff up but can someone else offer anything? 3) Literacy & reading went from sounding out words to comprehension and analysis - really?
Lawrene Bottorf June 13, 2012 at 02:24 pm
Dan, starting college is like starting a marathon...how many really finish??? Take a look at the data that counts...It now takes an average of 6.5 years to finish a 4-year degree. Over 42% of students who enter 4-year college need remediation. 35% of students don't go back to the same campus for their sophomore year...and student loan default rates are HUGE. I get phone calls daily from students who can't find work so they want to go back to school and take on even more debt.
tinytom June 14, 2012 at 11:26 am
Saw this movie last night and it fit somewhat with our subject. Here is a sad highlight:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R92OahqATIc
Shripathi Kamath June 14, 2012 at 01:17 pm
"Passing by groups of high school students, dropping "F-Bombs" as a part of everyday conversation, and the entitlement "occupy" movements are indications of indoctrination. "
Seriously? The "occupy" movement did not even exist till, oh, last year. And people with no funding, no corporate backing, no jobs, are indoctrinating K-12 people? The word indoctrination has been cliched so badly that it no longer means the same.
Dan Avery June 14, 2012 at 02:10 pm
Dan,
When it comes to teaching the impoverished, there is a great answer if you look beyond the borders of the United States; here, we really don't care about those in poverty. In fact out educational system is designed to make people stupid because they are easier to control. ($30,000) for a state university? Surely you jest. One of the answers to teaching the impoverished, well actually everyone, is Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. One should also read Freire's Education for Critical Consciousness
Dan Avery June 14, 2012 at 02:13 pm
Lawrene,
There has been serious indoctrination in our schools for a very long time. But it's not what you imagine. You should read Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, since you are tangentially in the education field. Every American should read it, actually, but very few will.
Dan Avery June 14, 2012 at 02:18 pm
mfriedrich,
do you have any idea what would happen to the crime rates if we cut everything you suggest, or imply, we cut in all these threads? Forget that. Do you have any idea what will happen to the crime rate if we cut education any further? Which is cheaper running prisons or schools? Oh wait, I forget, you're in favor of privatized prisons because then the tax payer doesn't have to pay for them. But the only way that works is if they actually have prisoners to make money off of; so it would make sense, then to cut the safety nets, education and the rest so crime goes up and those running prisons profit in the true and unique American way. Never mind. Different question. Any idea why Mussolini compare business with Fascism?
Shripathi Kamath June 14, 2012 at 03:13 pm
Generally agree about the magical thinking phenomenon, but the Fed Reserve is our way of governing monetary policy. If we eliminate them, we still need a monetary policy as a nation.
Are you proposing that we let be fulfilled by Congress?
Shripathi Kamath June 14, 2012 at 03:19 pm
"Plus we've had an American society now that thinks everyone's "entitled" to go to college cheaply on government guaranteed loans (which taxpayers fund). "
Of all the entitlements to pick on (banks backed by taxpayers, subsidies to farmers, oil, welfare), education would be among the lowest on my list. We are not going to advance as a nation with technological progress unless our people are better educated. Yes, that means college for the most part. I'd rather pay 1 billion in student loans rather than pay the same kids welfare/unemployment. I'd rather not pay either, but like Dan mentions, can you imagine a society in this century which does not have access to education? And no one goes to college cheaply anymore. With or without government backed loans.
tinytom June 14, 2012 at 03:59 pm
It's difficult to think on considering how low people view Congress, but it's the only way "We the People" can in theory participate in regulating commerce with national credit.
Lawrene Bottorf June 14, 2012 at 06:45 pm
@Shripathi-- I suggest that our views of education are perhaps different. Passing unqualified people up the k-12 ladder regardless of performance is not education. Getting some cookie cutter "degree" with no marketable skills is not education. There is more to education than academia...Work offers education, military disciplines offer education, trade schools offer education...
What good is education if the end result is a drag on society and the economy?
Dan Avery June 14, 2012 at 08:07 pm
Lawrene,
Your comment reminds me of the book The Education of Henry Adams, in which he talks about "formal" and "informal" education and compares them. I think we need to reassess education on a societal level. Re-envision it. We tend to think of it as a means to an end. Go to college and you'll get a better job. So, of course, we see a degree as being educated. All it is, however, is a piece of paper and it really doesn't stand for much at all. Not when you compare it against a real education regardless of where the person was educated.
Lawrene Bottorf June 15, 2012 at 10:32 am
Dan Avery- I agree...College education SHOULD be to THINK CRITICALLY and enrich ones life immeasurably, However, with the prohibitive cost, and the big "push" that college grads make bazillions more than high school grads, college, like any other investment should have a good ROI. If one can pay for it without debt, and wants to study gender studies (or some other seemingly unmarketable topic), knowing that they are going to college for education sake, and not for the sake of getting a job and paying off debt, then GREAT!
Dan Avery June 15, 2012 at 01:36 pm
Lawrene,
I attended the University of Minnesota for 2 and 1/2 years, realized I was only going to get a degree out of the place, and left. then I attended Macalester College for three years. They rightly devalued the University to being worth one year when I transferred in. I paid for all of it myself. The U of M was strictly loans and I think the tuition was about $2000 a year in the mid-70's. Macalester was about $12,000 for tuition in the early 80's. Took a spell off in between. Mac I paid for with a combination of loans, scholarships, and grants. Mac cost me $1500 a year with the loan, so it was cheaper than the University. Mac taught me three things. 1. Which building the library is. 2. How to think so I would know what to do with the information contained in the library. 3. Somethings are worth going into debt for. The third thing is key. Somethings are absolutely worth going into debt for. People buy houses and don't blink at going into debt. Not always worth it in my opinion. Most state Universities are absolutely not worth going into debt for and that would include all the U.C.'s. Penn State would be an exception. Private colleges and universities are definitively worth the debt. We have several excellent ones here in Southern California and I would encourage every student to figure out how to be admitted.
MFriedrich June 15, 2012 at 02:02 pm
Dan,
You obviously "win the internet" this week on LA Patch. I'm not sure what high school or college you went to, but I recommend you get a lawyer and sue them because they failed you. In what sentence above did I even mention privatized prisons or education cuts? I did not mention either. So you pretend to know my opinion on both? What I am against is government (taxpayer) subsidies of education loans. Why? Because all it does is artificially inflate prices of education and bankrupt the populace. Given George W. Bush's pressed law above, it is impossible to free yourself as a former student of such obligations, which now run into the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given your responses below, I don't expect you to understand the finance or economics behind my argument above. Whether college education, housing, corn/bean or wheat prices - it doesn't matter. Wherever you find massive federal government subsidies, you can damn well expect artificially high prices, a reduction in competition, and quite possibly a financial bubble. I'm offended by your suggestion that my comment in any way supports fascism. I recognized govt-sanctioned AND subsidized debt slavery when I see it. What's your excuse?
Dan Avery June 15, 2012 at 03:45 pm
Why should we have loans that you can extinguish? Isn't that actually a government subsidy which you are dead set against and see as the root of all evil? By the way, it was under Reagan that it became impossible to erase a student loan through bankruptcy.
Prices rise every year and education is no exception. The fact that education is not as good as it once was is not tied to the price. It's easier to control the dumb. It is not in our government's best interest to give everyone an exceptional education. That is reserved for children of about 1% of our population. And there are a handful of schools that will provide a first-class education to them. You see government subsidies. I see government investments. Our society would be much stronger if we received free health care and a free education, like most leading nations provide to their people. Just because I think your fiscal views are moronic and dangerous does not mean that I don't understand them. Read Jefferson. Without a free education, Democracy is impossible to sustain. Jefferson meant "free" on two levels: financial and academic freedom. So by arguing against "government subsidies for education" you are actually arguing for democracy's end. Notice that I attacked your ideas rather than you personally. You on the other hand lashed out at me personally. That's known as an ad hominen argument and it's a logical fallacy.
Andron August 17, 2012 at 05:17 pm
The reason Lawrene is so "cryptic" in her comments is that her and her husband are extreme conservative evangelicals which should help you understand their meaning of "indoctrination". Tea Party people to the extreme without any acceptance of those that don't accept their extreme beliefs. So Lawrene just be honest about who you are. It's fine if that's who you are but don't "dance" around it.
Lawrene Bottorf August 17, 2012 at 06:01 pm
The topic was about student debt... I never "dance " around the fact that I am fiscally responsible or that I look to Jesus as my Lord. I also have fielded hundreds of phone calls looking for the "free money for my (fill in whatever race/behavior/label) student. What about all that Obama money for single moms???? Call it what you want...I call it indoctrination. And throwing more money without accountability at a broken system, or requiring subjective social curriculum in k-12 -- is not making for a more employable generation, just a more entitled one. And whether a parent is a Christian, Hindu, or atheist, to go into massive debt without the facts is stupid. We are professionals and have helped thousands of families...of all religious, national ancestry, or political perspective, to get into the best fit college, and graduate in 4 years without jeopardizing the parents retirement.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming theRead More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Tom Thumb June 16, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Shoot, I don't know about that. What we are hearing now is Obama/McCain are pushing to arm theRead More rebels who are supporting and are part of Al Qaeda: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It mightRead More even flourish on reddit.
You're welcome!
Panglonymous June 6, 2013 at 07:35 pm
Graphs like this are sometimes created (and/or distributed) by persons with a deep understandingRead More (and/or appreciation) of things like this: 3. Something uncommon or unusual. 4. ~Astrophysics~ A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted. 5. ~Mathematics~ A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.
Shripathi Kamath June 7, 2013 at 11:28 am
Don't toy with me, what happened to 1. and 2.? Is this some sort of Star Wars Jedi mind trickery onRead More sequence?