Student Loans Getting Close to Implosion!

[stahleyp]

I find it funny that that colleges, by and large, tend to be very liberal and about "social justice" but have no issue loading kids with tons of debt. I agree that something needs to be done about education but I don't like the idea of loan forgiveness/bailout. It doesn't fix the actual issue (schools overcharging for the services provided). And rewards those that have a degree and debt but doesn't reward those with a degree and no debt or those without a degree.

 

I'd much prefer something like a tax deduction on the full amount paid back per year and limiting schools to allow them to only increase total cost by the rate of inflation. Perhaps we could do something like if you pay your loans off within 10 years, you can deduct all of it and no interest. If you pay it after that you get a deduction but will owe interest.

 

 

[Castanza]

Hey all:

 

Here is another thing to ponder.

 

If the education being peddled by "educators" is valuable & worthwhile (certainly some is), why are there so many people so far in debt?  Why is the amount owed easily $1.5T?

 

If graduates get good jobs, jobs that pay $$$$ commensurate with the time & money invested in them, then why so much debt? 

 

People with valuable educations would be making more $, and easily paying down/off their student loans.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that a shockingly high percentage of education is simply no where near as valuable as what it is made out to be.  Thus, you get the shocking amount of debt.

 

Meanwhile, the "educators" laugh all the way to the bank.

 

I distinctly remember sitting in my dorm room wondering why the hell I was paying 20k a year for power points. That's exactly what the majority of courses are. Yeah you get some valuable lab work and get to talk with the professors but the majority of "learning" is done on your own. Youtube can teach you Calc, Chem (minus the lab), Biology, Physics and everything else just as well. The only thing different is it's free and there is no accountability or way to prove you "learned" it. It's easy to see the value of education looking back in history. But looking forward not as much. Seems to be more about making connections and having a piece of paper to market yourself and check off a box.

[KJP]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

[SHDL]

I’m personally a fan of the income sharing arrangements that some institutions are starting/testing.  IMO a young person’s professional career is the type of thing that ought to be financed mostly by equity, not debt.  A lot of the horror stories I read are about households that are like startups that got themselves started with 7x EBITDA worth of debt and no equity.  That is financially reckless, even if the expected returns are good. 

 

That said, I do agree that higher ed is ripe for massive disruption.

[Castanza]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

 

Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak.

 

I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

[KJP]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

 

Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak.

 

I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

 

I suspect tuition would go down, not up.  Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives.  They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans.  If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly.

 

The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent.  But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy.  I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them.

[Castanza]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

 

Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak.

 

I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

 

I suspect tuition would go down, not up.  Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives.  They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans.  If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly.

 

The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent.  But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy.  I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html

 

My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability?

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

ALL degrees have 'value'; it's just not always a commercial value.

Few would argue that attending the Julliard School is of little value if you want a career in the performing arts. But while we may think that attendance is not worth the cost (NPV < zero), a successful graduation from Julliard WILL very likely improve your odds of success.

https://www.juilliard.edu/admissions

 

It is well known that if something is 'free', we attach little value to it. Even if we need it to live (ie: clean air and water).

Hence the reality is that a 'sheepskin' needs to cost you something to obtain. But If you dont have the confidence to invest some of your own dollars in your own future - why should anyone invest dollars in you? (making financing available). There needs to be debt upon graduation, and it needs to be large enough to spur positive behaviour. ie. Work like a dog, to pay it off as soon as possible (and get your career off the ground at the same time).

 

How much is too much, is different for everyone. But there will always be losses to predation - its part of life.

However, the bigger &/or more mature/smarter the prey, the harder it is to predate.

 

Cut the apron strings, pop the bubble-wrap, & let the kids swim.

 

SD

 

 

[KJP]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

 

Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak.

 

I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

 

I suspect tuition would go down, not up.  Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives.  They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans.  If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly.

 

The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent.  But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy.  I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html

 

My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability?

 

I'm not sure what lawsuits you're referring to.  Lawsuits on the guarantees?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The fact that the debt is not dischargeable is insane.  There needs to be a system with some accountability for the schools and the lenders.  Most of the schools are borderline committing fraud with the statistics they publish and upon which these children (or adults with massive information disadvantages) are making huge financial decisions (with the help of advisors compensated by the recipient of the loan proceeds).  Higher education needs to be totally disrupted. The financial incentives are totally perverse and so....a clusterfk is born.

 

+1

 

No bailout is necessary. Just the ability to discharge the loans in bankruptcy. This will force reasonable lending standards on the industry instead of making loans that can never be paid back.

 

I don't want a bailout to borrowers because it was a choice, but less of a choice when considering all of the social pressures. We were all told to go to college to get a good job. No other alternative was offered. Now, you may fault kids for not doing the cost-benefit analysis, but ultimately this is what they were told to do by older people with more experience - and those same people are the ones who disparaged the lazy millennials who DIDN'T want to go to college.

 

The borrowers need to accept responsibility for their decisions. Bankruptcy doesn't come easy, but would "let them off the hook" and it would also punish the lenders who made unreasonable loans.

 

The real travesty here is that the govt took it over by arguing private lenders were being predatory and make unsustainable loans....and then continued the practice at a much larger scale!

[Castanza]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

 

Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak.

 

I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

 

I suspect tuition would go down, not up.  Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives.  They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans.  If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly.

 

The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent.  But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy.  I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html

 

My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability?

 

I'm not sure what lawsuits you're referring to.  Lawsuits on the guarantees?

 

I may have completely misunderstood what you were saying. What I thought you were saying was that if students upon graduation could not find a job would be able to sue the college and put the loan back on them to be paid. What did you mean by accountability/guarantee?

[BG2008]

I volunteered as an alumni for my college fraternity.  The school quoted us $400k to redo our bathroom.  Granted, it is designed to have 6-8 showers and multiple stalls etc.  But $400k for a communal bathroom in upstate New York.  The amount of administrative burden on such a task is ridiculous.  But all jobs must be approved by the school. 

[SharperDingaan]

The fact that the debt is not dischargeable is insane.  There needs to be a system with some accountability for the schools and the lenders.  Most of the schools are borderline committing fraud with the statistics they publish and upon which these children (or adults with massive information disadvantages) are making huge financial decisions (with the help of advisors compensated by the recipient of the loan proceeds).  Higher education needs to be totally disrupted. The financial incentives are totally perverse and so....a clusterfk is born.

 

+1

 

No bailout is necessary. Just the ability to discharge the loans in bankruptcy. This will force reasonable lending standards on the industry instead of making loans that can never be paid back.

 

I don't want a bailout to borrowers because it was a choice, but less of a choice when considering all of the social pressures. We were all told to go to college to get a good job. No other alternative was offered. Now, you may fault kids for not doing the cost-benefit analysis, but ultimately this is what they were told to do by older people with more experience - and those same people are the ones who disparaged the lazy millennials who DIDN'T want to go to college.

 

The borrowers need to accept responsibility for their decisions. Bankruptcy doesn't come easy, but would "let them off the hook" and it would also punish the lenders who made unreasonable loans.

 

The real travesty here is that the govt took it over by arguing private lenders were being predatory and make unsustainable loans....and then continued the practice at a much larger scale!

 

Sorry, but we don't get to 'game the system'.

No going to Harvard to get your masters, racking up 200K to pay for it; walking away from the debt (via bankruptcy) ... while still keeping the earning power of that Harvard degree! The loans are secured against (the future taxes on) lifetime earnings, and lifetime means exactly that - lifetime.

 

As already pointed out; all a student need do every month is just pay interest only.

Never pay the loan back, and just bank the principal that you would have paid in either a mortgage principal repayment, or T-Bills. No defaults, no pressure to act, and every month you're a little further ahead. Student wins, government loses, and eventually you will probably get a community related write-off.

 

All we need do is just not give the loan until the student evidences sufficient 'maturity'.

Pick a set of relevant criteria, that the student either has or does not.

 

SD

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

The fact that the debt is not dischargeable is insane.  There needs to be a system with some accountability for the schools and the lenders.  Most of the schools are borderline committing fraud with the statistics they publish and upon which these children (or adults with massive information disadvantages) are making huge financial decisions (with the help of advisors compensated by the recipient of the loan proceeds).  Higher education needs to be totally disrupted. The financial incentives are totally perverse and so....a clusterfk is born.

 

+1

 

No bailout is necessary. Just the ability to discharge the loans in bankruptcy. This will force reasonable lending standards on the industry instead of making loans that can never be paid back.

 

I don't want a bailout to borrowers because it was a choice, but less of a choice when considering all of the social pressures. We were all told to go to college to get a good job. No other alternative was offered. Now, you may fault kids for not doing the cost-benefit analysis, but ultimately this is what they were told to do by older people with more experience - and those same people are the ones who disparaged the lazy millennials who DIDN'T want to go to college.

 

The borrowers need to accept responsibility for their decisions. Bankruptcy doesn't come easy, but would "let them off the hook" and it would also punish the lenders who made unreasonable loans.

 

The real travesty here is that the govt took it over by arguing private lenders were being predatory and make unsustainable loans....and then continued the practice at a much larger scale!

 

Sorry, but we don't get to 'game the system'.

No going to Harvard to get your masters, racking up 200K to pay for it; walking away from the debt (via bankruptcy) ... while still keeping the earning power of that Harvard degree! The loans are secured against (the future taxes on) lifetime earnings, and lifetime means exactly that - lifetime.

 

As already pointed out; all a student need do every month is just pay interest only.

Never pay the loan back, and just bank the principal that you would have paid in either a mortgage principal repayment, or T-Bills. No defaults, no pressure to act, and every month you're a little further ahead. Student wins, government loses, and eventually you will probably get a community related write-off.

 

All we need do is just not give the loan until the student evidences sufficient 'maturity'.

Pick a set of relevant criteria, that the student either has or does not.

 

SD

 

While I understand your point, it's not students who went to Harvard to get their MBAs that are the cause of the student debt explosion or the inability to pay. If govt isn't comfortable subsidizing that risk, it could go back to the private market which is going to look for co-signers and/or collateral which isn't an unreasonable request.

 

The problem is primarily middle-america students who racked up 70k in loans to end up with a 35k-50k/year job OR those who couldn't get a job in 2008-2010 who then went back to grad school and racked up additional loans to make themselves more competitive even as wage growth continued to stagnate.

 

Secondly, not sure where you think interest rates are on most of these loans, but paying interest only and investing the principal at 2% is still a mutli-decade strategy that will suck up a large portion of disposable income and only provide a modicum of relief a decade down the road.. .

[cubsfan]

Nice article on the tradeoffs on the public picking up the tab for higher education in developed countries:

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/what-european-countries-sacrifice-for-free-college/

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

Public/private is really just swings & roundabouts.

For some states/nations there may well be a clear direction, whereas for others it may well be essentially a wash.

There's lots of abuse in both approaches

 

The principal thing is aimed at house buyers.

If I only have 2K month for debt service, and student loans take up 500 (350 P, 150 I) of it, the remaining 1500 is not going to cover a mortgage; I need partners/renters to split the mortgage with. If I can pay interest only on that student loan, the remaining 350 can go to mortgage (bigger house &/or fewer partners/renters). Ultimately I can live rent-free (managing my 'slum'), sell out for a higher price; but this time buy something similar with more equity, and no renters. Still have a partner though ... just this time re-named 'significant other'  ;D

 

Our new graduate can just be an 'intelligent idiot', or he/she can actually do something useful.

No help required !

 

SD

 

 

 

[LC]

SD, the simple solution is to wait say 8 years out-of-school before being allowed to include student loan debt in bankruptcy.

 

You have either built some life for yourself which you will be hesitant to lose in bankruptcy, or you have so few assets that this would be a “legitimate” case. Of course people can try to game this as well by spending 8 years stuffing all these assets in blind trusts or whatnot, but people play that same game with all types of other assets as well.

[BG2008]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-13/if-the-tuition-doesn-t-get-you-the-cost-of-student-housing-will

 

College kids don't need luxury apartments

[Gregmal]

It's odd, but I've seen some of the opposite. My brother attended Stony Brook. The kids on campus live in utter shit boxes. Room and board is like $15,000 a year.  Yes, the equivalent of $1250 per month rent. While it kind of comes with a meal plan, that too is a crock. The main cafeterias charge per item, and Starbucks is still airport level price wise, burgers and sandwich pricing resembles Yankee Stadium, and once you run through your "allotment" that is included with room and board, your get billed. Easily tacking on another $3000 per semester. And oh yea, you don't even have housing during winter and summer breaks. So your adjusted rent is actually about $1700-$1800 per month. Move off campus? And you can find entire houses for $1500-$2000 per month and 1/2 bedroom places for $1000 per month. I saw the same thing when I attended school in Florida what seemed like ages ago. Schools are legit scams that prey on people who trust them.

[KJP]

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best.

 

A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with.

 

So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed.

 

__________________________________

 

Solution?

 

First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed.

 

Put stipulations on loans.

 

1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's.

 

2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN).

 

3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme)

 

4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university.

 

5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." 

 

Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED.

 

(I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.)

 

You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules.

1.) Graduate HS

2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS

3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

 

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be.  Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans?  That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate.  A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large.

 

Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak.

 

I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

 

I suspect tuition would go down, not up.  Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives.  They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans.  If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly.

 

The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent.  But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy.  I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html

 

My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability?

 

I'm not sure what lawsuits you're referring to.  Lawsuits on the guarantees?

 

I may have completely misunderstood what you were saying. What I thought you were saying was that if students upon graduation could not find a job would be able to sue the college and put the loan back on them to be paid. What did you mean by accountability/guarantee?

 

No.  I'm suggesting that universities be required to guarantee federally issued school debt.  If the student defaults, the government can sue the university on the guarantee, and the university would retain the right to seek indemnity from the defaulting student, as on a typical debt guarantee.

[DTEJD1997]

Oh the delicious irony!

 

Teachers are complaining about student loans!

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/07/16/536488351/teachers-with-student-debt-the-struggle-the-causes-and-what-comes-next

 

hahahahaha

 

They are also mad that only about 1% are getting PSLF.  Well, tough luck, they didn't read the small print correctly OR made mistakes that disqualified them.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/11/739860400/broken-promises-teachers-sue-u-s-over-student-loans-that-werent-forgiven

 

Too bad, so sad.  Pay up!

 

These people truly don't understand how well they have it.  Most teachers get their summers off.  They also get a Christmas break, and a Spring break.  I also think they have several other paid days off, such as Thanksgiving and some other days.  So when you look at their pay divided by the actual number of days they work, they get paid pretty good.

 

Most teachers also have healthcare and pension programs.  A lot of workers in private industry don't have either.

 

Well, now they know better and can redouble their efforts to make $$$ and pay off their loans.

[Gregmal]

Don't forget tenure as well!

 

The truth is that the good teachers find ways to bank it. I knew a couple that worked middle/high school who also taught a few courses at the local universities. Double and triple leveraging their knowledge base to easily earn six figures. A few others did their 20-25 prior with other government services and now have two pensions lined up.

 

Granted, Ive also served on boards with teachers and government workers, and for the most part they are academics who have no clue how the real world works, but thats largely just what they are. Credit to the ones who figure out how to excel.

[cubsfan]

Oh the delicious irony!

 

Most teachers also have healthcare and pension programs.  A lot of workers in private industry don't have either.

 

 

I'm not sure what the Teacher pension situation is in other states, but in Illinois - it a great deal. I hear these teachers bitch about how hard

they work etc, --- but check out some of these pensions - here a slice from Naperville, ILL schools, fairly close to me:

 

https://www.openthebooks.com/map/?Map=1803&MapType=Pin&Zip=60527

 

(when the map opens, just click on Naperville)

 

Not bad if you've been teaching driver's ed or an art class your whole life!

 

 

 

[DTEJD1997]

Oh the delicious irony!

 

Most teachers also have healthcare and pension programs.  A lot of workers in private industry don't have either.

 

 

I'm not sure what the Teacher pension situation is in other states, but in Illinois - it a great deal. I hear these teachers bitch about how hard

they work etc, --- but check out some of these pensions - here a slice from Naperville, ILL schools, fairly close to me:

 

https://www.openthebooks.com/map/?Map=1803&MapType=Pin&Zip=60527

 

(when the map opens, just click on Naperville)

 

Not bad if you've been teaching driver's ed or an art class your whole life!

 

Not bad if you've been teaching, English, literature, working in the library, or teaching just about anything.  Remember, these people largely had 2-3 months off in the summer.  If they were desperate for cash they could have painted houses, drive big rigs, delivered pizzas, or done landscaping.  Heck, they could have even bought & rehabilitated real estate!  Banks love to lend to teachers.

 

I think IL is somewhat above the average for pensions in the USA.  However, here in MI, I know of one teacher who get almost $90k a year in pension, and another who was teacher/admin, who makes about $200k a year in pension.  They also get "Cadillac" health care coverage.

 

So while teachers in MI don't appear to make quite what they make in IL, they generally do pretty darn good.

[DTEJD1997]

Don't forget tenure as well!

 

The truth is that the good teachers find ways to bank it. I knew a couple that worked middle/high school who also taught a few courses at the local universities. Double and triple leveraging their knowledge base to easily earn six figures. A few others did their 20-25 prior with other government services and now have two pensions lined up.

 

Granted, Ive also served on boards with teachers and government workers, and for the most part they are academics who have no clue how the real world works, but thats largely just what they are. Credit to the ones who figure out how to excel.

 

i don't have any problem with anybody making a living doing honest work.  The problem with primary educators is several fold:

 

1). The general populace thinks that skools are simply starved for funds.  Here in MI, nothing could be further from the truth.  Untold BILLIONS are poured into edukation.  For example, DPS spends about $14k per student/per year.  The actual capital put into that system is actually a bit higher than that even as there are donations from the private sector and an insane amount of real estate held in the system.

 

2). The results of the DPS are much improved.  Close to 65% of it's students are now managing to graduate from high school.  This is simply a stunning improvement over years ago.

 

How many of those graduates are barely literate and in truth under educated?

 

What happened/happens to the hundreds of thousands that never graduated high school?  How/where do they get work?  Form business/families and become productive members of society?

 

In other school districts, it seems that students are less prepared as time progresses.  So the efficiency and quality of education has gone down quite a bit, even as $$$$ put to it has gone up.

 

3). The general public thinks that most teachers are eating ramen noodles cooked over an open flame under a bridge overpass.  Average wage of DPS teacher is about $58k a year.  Please see:

 

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-school-teacher-salary/detroit-mi

 

While $58k is not a tremendous amount of cash, consider that they get EXCELLENT healthcare, they get a pension, they get summers off, and they get plenty of paid holidays and other minor benefits.  Add it all up, and it is rather significant.

 

Teachers with a Master's degree, or special certifications make more.  Teachers in suburbs can make significantly more than in DPS.

 

So hopefully people will see this and realize what exactly is going on.