My point is that getting into Colorado Boulder if you’re Pell eligible doesn’t really help (a low income family is expected to pay more than half their total income). If a low income student has overcome all obstacles to get into their flagship, they should be able to attend without risking bankruptcy for their whole family. Without massive state grants, 30k is NOT cheap. For a low income student, COA above Pell+loans+ work earnings means it’s out of reach financially - so, basically, more than 15K including room/board, fees, transportation, books, miscellaneous, means it’s impossible to pay for a lower income student. If the family lives hand-to-mouth, even such expenses are difficult. Middle class families may not find 30K “cheap” either.
All in all, we need to consider a combination of individual benefit and common benefit.
Tennessee didn’t start PROMISE because it was only good for individuals, but because they saw it as a collective investment in their state’s economy, growth, attractiveness.
When the general impact of college costs/debt is so big that it affects buying a home or having children, not to mention where you can take a job or holds back smart people from reaching their full potential, we all lose, first in economic strength, second in the global competition.
The TICAS numbers include student loan debt for graduates of all types of colleges, not just public ones, although public ones have the largest attendance in most states.
This old article at https://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/college/q_studentdebt/ says that “In 1999-2000, 64 percent of college students graduated with student loan debt, and the average debt has nearly doubled during the last eight years to $16,928, according to a report from the State Public Interest Research Group’s Higher Education Project.”
I would like to understand why this amount of debt is not manageable to a graduate of a reputable 4 year institution. I’m not talking about people getting fleeced by for profit scams. But people coming out of real colleges with real degrees. When you combine PAYE with PSLF it seems even better. Someone coming out with a teaching or nursing degree should be able to take advantage of pay as you earn and then discharge the entire debt after ten years. I realize the PSLF is new and has had implementation problems, but those should be able to be worked out.
I just don’t understand why this amount of debt, combined with the ability to get debt discharged for working in public serve or non-profit doesn’t work.
Would I would like to see is college made affordable with federal debt plus reasonable work study. Right now that simply isn’t possible.
Gallentjill, they could be putting that 300/month into some matched retirement plan or saving for a home, travel, side courses, investing, whatever. Many kids face high rents, utilities, cell, car payments. Insurance, gas, clothing and social wants. It’s not great to say, in ten years, you can live. Not all want teaching or public service jobs.
D1 has great pay. Still, end of every month is tight. I hate her doing this for 5 or 6 more years. It’s a ball and chain, not forward planning.
And look at how much interest is paid over that ten years.
Not all debt is bad. There are always 'better" uses for the cash then paying down the loan- but the statistics on lifetime earnings for college graduates are still better than the numbers for non-college graduates, even factoring in loans.
I have a large family, and nieces and nephews galore. It is interesting to watch them launch and to realize that for most of them, the debt is just “what it is”. They are in professional careers, they may have made choices that their peers wouldn’t (not having a car, having a roommate) but I wouldn’t describe their lives as spartan. Frugal yes- but then who in our generation didn’t have to watch our pennies in the early years of our careers, whether or not we had debt? My college classmates graduated into a recession- we felt lucky to get jobs, and tripling up in small, cruddy apartments was the norm after graduating.
This was before Friends and other TV shows which showed young people living in expensive cities in huge apartments, going out every night and buying nice clothes. We thought it was the norm that you borrowed an outfit from a friend if you had a big job interview.
I’m not prepared to get upset over kids who borrow, have a solid plan for paying it back- and DO pay it back. Living with roommates when you are 23 years old and not being able to save for a downpayment (yet) for a house is not a tragedy. And again- back in the day- people who couldn’t afford grad school didn’t go to grad school right away. They worked for a few years; they got lucky with an employer who would pay for courses a few at a time, or they saved before they went back. I have friends who think it’s the world’s greatest tragedy if they are too tapped out from undergrad to take on yet MORE loans so their kid can go to grad school right away.
Blossom, no one I knew took the early period of sharing and economizing more than a few years. By 25 or 26, they had a path (or none.) Today that adjustment period can last ten years, the std payback. More if you extend the terms. It’s not about being 23. Rather, 30 or 32, still paying off loans.
We don’t need to wait for AI. MOOCs have already demonstrated the viability of education where the marginal cost of enrolling additional students is close to zero.
@ucbalumnus : since the numbers I listed were for public universities only, and yours include private colleges yet are lower, I think it’s clear something as gone out of whack in the 21st century.
@gallentjill : because that debt follows students into their 30s now. If students want to take on debt it’s one thing; but having no other choice but debt to attend your public university, in-state, is not right.
People will still spend money to go to sleep away school and borrow if federal laws regarding borrowing for education remain as they are. Top colleges will still be in demand. Money will still buy choices and premiums in education. It does for just about everything else so,’…
But anyone who wants a post high school education would be allowed to have one at a local venue, tuition free. Getting even a hundred dollars for a fee is more than some people can muster. I worked in an area where many live hand to mouth and an extra
$20 was even hard to muster. Forget several hundred dollars. But if everyone had an allotment of courses they could take at no charge, along with refresher prep courses if needed, it could be a game changer. With more funding CC could become a highly desirable place to spend some time, a regular college campus I’d like to see more education funds diverted here.
^ yes, that’s exactly the right point. Everyone should have access to an appropriate higher education program, tuition free.
There should also be investment into secondary vocational education, with community college continuation. It’d be a logical path: in the 10th or 11th grade, you could have a 4-period day with academics, 2 periods of vocational theory, then 2 periods of vocational lab/practice, plus one day set aside for professional training or application to the real world ( modified vo-tech). You cover various jobs and positions within a broad field if applicable. You have a basic a qualification that’s better than a general HS diploma.
Then you move on to community college and you specialize.
Vo tech high schools are rarer and many town would rather have two general high schools than one academic and one vocational.
@ChangeTheGame you are so lucky to live in a state that cares about education! I’m in Alabama and most citizens want an education lottery like yours but we will never get it with our corrupt politicians. My daughter is eligible for instate tuition at University of Florida due to the post-9/11 GI bill, so we are very grateful. Most kids at UF get free tuition as well due to their lottery. It boggles the mind that Alabama can’t get their act together.
Many states have managed to find ways. Tennessee, New York State, Florida, Minnesota, all have various plans that make college tuition free or debt free.
Anyway, the impact of doing nothing is too big: when people in the late 20s/early 30s/mid30s are putting off having children and not buying houses because they still have college debt, it snowballs into the whole economy and the country’s health. In the same vein, we all benefit when more people are educated and use their money to consume rather than to pay back debt.
We’re having the same conversation in Ontario and our tuition rates are wayyy lower than yours. The Ontario government just instituted a 10% tuition cut and freeze and is requiring universities to make a portion of the ancillary fees optional. On the other hand they reduced the qualifying income for financial aid and lowered the percentage that was bursary and increased the loan portion. They also eliminated the 6 month grace period after graduation before interest starts accumulating and they increased the age before a student can be considered independent of their parents (if you have been out of high school for less than 6 years you’re still considered dependent so basically until age 24). They also eliminated the tuition/books tax rebate. So for those who don’t need financial aid it’s a bit cheaper but for those that do they’re going to end up with much more debt.
