“Colleges whose students owe the most, 2000 vs. 2014” …
Not a surprise that for profit schools are highlighted in the article.
Those numbers are astounding in terms of the rise of for-profit schools.
For the non-profits, NYU is in the top 2.
Lol… Score for my IFII index!!!
So?
No one is FORCED to attend NYU.
No one is being forced to attend Liberty, Penn State or other schools on the list.
But @Dave_Berry makes an important point…these schools are part of the problem of tuition inflation.
Let’s say you take away a big portion of loan availability. Who loses? Middle class kids. The poor can go for free if well prepared/informed. The rich can pay the bill in cash. Those between will be iced out and will be forced into state or community colleges that are already underfunded. And then everyone will see the dirty little secret: no one cares about the middle class.
We have to address this though. The availability of loans is what drives what can only be called “hyper-inflation” in tuition rates.
If the middle class are making less today than 50 years ago (inflation adjusted), but tuition is 3x what it was 50 years ago (inflation adjusted), and other expenses are only mildly changed in price from 50 years ago (inflation adjusted), we have a huge problem in our college systems.
I think we need to stop encouraging kids to attend schools with ridiculous tuition rates. If your tuition is over x, no funding for you…use your endowments. Then redirect that $ to public schools to help them keep their tuitions affordable.
Maybe we should consider capping the tax free endowment at a certain level and excise taxing the rest to help the other schools.
Not sure how that list of student debt translates into another run at endowment money, NYU and USC are probably the only well-endowed school on there. And, without dividing by the number of students or considering default rates on the same table, you aren’t really showing everything.
Also the listed state flagships are large (lots of students in the denominator) and have been increasing tuition and reducing aid due to state budget cutbacks that may or may not be related to real state budget issues (in otherwords, some governors have taken the axe to state college budgets to solve other budget issues, which is short sighted since these folks will pay taxes for 40 years on higher incomes … .etc). Yes, a middle-class student might have to borrow 30-40K, but that may be a good investment if they are serious about school (not parties) and graduate with a good degree or at least some work skills (not saying all need to be STEM or professional degrees, just coming out with work ethic and good language and math and computer type skills for workplace).
Certainly each state’s taxpayers could try to adjust priorities to put more money into state colleges.
What is clear is that for-profit schools are large users of student loans and large contributors to default rates (which imply both losses to taxpayers and hardship for the students themselves, who now have poor credit for life).
And despite the high IFII, most NYU students do repay their loans, 91% a very high number.
I think CC does a good job of not encouraging kids to attend schools they can’t afford without staggering debt (and I would argue for any good paying field at a top 100 school, 40K in debt is serviceable and may still be a good investment). What are you arguing, stopping student aid to say Harvard students or what? Private institutions that are non-profit are charities and really can spend their money on their educational mission as they please.
Also, note that the total tuition bills for all students need to pay the institutions bills, so if you want say Harvard to meet full-need, someone does have to full-pay or pay more than state tuitions. Do you want all 1%ers with trust funds or is it OK for some 5-10%ers to borrow money? Is it your business?
The numbers need to be normalized per student. Those schools with a large number of students get hit the hardest on a total dollar metric (thus why Phoenix is WAY out in front).
I think it is clear what business it is of ours: defaults cost $. Maybe you are not a big taxpayer, but those of us who do pay end up paying for it in the end. The same with “charities”. They are restricted from amassing big hoards of cash, yet they find ways around it…in other areas of the world, if you can support your own school, govt funding is nearly eliminated. In NY, if your local property taxes can bring in over xx of your school budget, state funding is cut to the minimum amount, or $1k per kid.
There is “the can do whatever they want with it” but only within the rules under 501©(3), and only for as long as the law continues to allow it. Perhaps it is time to shake up the status quo a little. Everyone wants to “tax the rich” don’t they:)?
Oh, no!
@JustOneDad I should have ended that with: Where they can’t afford the tuition bc there is not enough funding…
I went to a state school (which just broke the top 200! Yay!). And I did amazingly well in the game of life. But even that school now is $25k a year all in. Back in my day my parents paid $300 a semester and FA and merit paid the rest, under $9k a year. Middle class kids can’t afford even the sub funded state schools.
Community college is a temporary fix. Eventually they have to face the big school bill.
I’m a very big conservative, but college should be somewhat affordable to all…not just those who can write a check, and those who have Harvard paying for everything, including a new pair of snow boots and a plane ride home 3 times a year. That’s all I’m saying. Maybe we need to start thinking outside the box.
Very difficult to get many people on board with out-of-the box thinking. What with them all being so smart, experienced and well-educated, that is.
Since the average cost of tuition and fees at public schools for residents was about $10,000 this year, students could pay for that by working and getting a Pell Grant.
I’d like to be impressed by the whining about college costs, but I’m just not.
If your state does not support your school due to high property taxes paid by you, that is an additional state tax on you that is going to lower SES schools. That’s fine, but it’s a tax and income redistribution or even a value judgement (your house is too expensive, why don’t you live in a small house in a bad neighborhood).
There is a lot of private and public social engineering going on. What if Harvard were a charity that provided a world-class education to 750 deserving lower class students including snow boots (sounds shocking, but then again what are they supposed to do, be barefoot in 3 feet of Boston snow? And since dorms are closed over winter and kids have homes somewhere in America, they do need 3 tickets right ?)
Since Harvard and many other fine schools with big endowments are 4-star charities, they are obviously doing well at managing their 501©(3) obligations, better than many more socially appropriate charities like say the American Cancer Society. More money going to program expenses, lot less into both administration and marketing, full transparent financial statements, lower executive compensation.
I have to agree with @JustOneDad too, at $10K per year and with Pell grants available, education is actually affordable (and I can’t feel particularly obligated to let students who did not really work hard in high school and are marginal for college live in dorms and eat at taxpayer expense).
Obviously, making for-profit schools actually provide something for our predominantly taxpayer funds (and a few clueless people using their own money) would free up a lot of money. For one thing “profit” could be reinvested by either "non-profit’ or public institutions into actually educating folks and maybe providing some meaningful resources that help student success (academic counselling, tutoring, etc).
There also has to be some interaction between high schools and community colleges so that there is some clear forward path for everyone. An AA can take forever if you have to start in remedial classes and isn’t a good value in time or money for anyone.
The poor are not in that great a situation in terms of financing college. Sure, they will get more need-based financial aid than the middle class, but most four year colleges, other than super-selective ones that very few (from any SES class, but especially the poor) get admitted to and the state universities if they are lucky enough to live in states like California with good in-state financial aid, will not offer good financial aid to the poor. So students from poor families are in mostly the same situation as the higher-income-but-no-college-savings middle class whose kids have to seek merit scholarships at schools that would otherwise be low match or safety level for admission, or attend the local commuter-based non-flagship state university. But the ones from poor families tend to have fewer opportunities in K-12 to prepare for college, and typically worse support from counselors busy with other student problems, teachers, non-college-educated family members, and non-college-bound peers in terms of finding the path to college.
In general in the US, college opportunities are strongly correlated with family income. In aggregate, the poor are not better off than the middle class (particularly the “middle class” of these forums with top 10% incomes) in this respect.
If the student has parental support for room and board costs. Parental support includes the parents allowing the student continuing to live at home at no charge.
Community college is not a temporary fix for students who want a 4 year degree, it actually gets the halfway there at minimal cost, or more than halfway if they need to catch up on math or language skills. They are widespread, so close to almost everyone and you can live at home, work maybe 20 hours a week instead of drinking like a fish, and get a good education.
Then you can either commute to a 4 year school or you can live on campus for 2 years (maybe off campus since you are now older and can handle more than dorm life with meal plan) if that gives you a better education.
I think state schools should be cheaper, but they are not exorbitant either.
The CCs are not only some band aid, but also really increase the number of people who can get a high quality 4 year degree by increasing the number of people in the pipeline. And they encourage diversity and moving up, since you can graduate from a 2nd tier mediocre high-school work hard and make it to your state’s flagship (and some of the higher SES folks who are lazy might just get pushed out, but that is OK).
There is another set of CCs that are trying to serve a much lower SES and much less educated group of people, many who have never had a real academic experience, have no support at home, have personal issues, etc. I think they really need to be graded on a different metric, do they improve these people’s lives in some way ? Do they provide a safety net or trampoline for say 10 or 20% of students who can move up to a better life via education ? Do they provide some kind of job training ?
Is this really a distinct set of CCs, or do most CCs have a mix of these types of students as well as other types of students (although perhaps in different proportions)?
My point with the plane tix and snow boots is that everyone should be asked to pay something. In the Harvard example, I think it is fair to ask any kid to pay up to the $5500 they can borrow each year. (No interest while in school). Why should one kid graduate debt free bc the parent income is $60k, but the next has $50k in loans bc the income was 90k? It’s the parents’ income. Both kids start fresh with a Harvard degree…both could handle a little debt with their earning power. (I am aware my #s are made up here).
I guess I’m referring to the real middle class, where even 10-12k in tuition is hard to pay. I just think those between $60 and $100k are largely forgotten.
And you are right that outside the box thinking is generally DOA!!
This list isn’t really that useful.
Some schools are on there just because they enroll a huge number of students. I live in Pennsylvania and I can tell you that the kids going to Penn State and Temple are accumulating far less debt than the vast majority of their peers who are attending Scranton, Fordham, Tufts, Drexel, etc.
Also, what about all the private and PLUS loans? I can’t see that they’re included in this list. Isn’t it only one piece of the student loan picture? How useful is it to know that kids are taking out the maximum amount of government loans? Lots of kids do that.
The issue of CC’s is a complex one, but to ask if attending has some benefits even if a kid doesn’t get a degree is asking the wrong question. The typical young person who drops out of a CC without an AA or a certificate has a triple whammy- debt, no better job prospects than before, and whatever opportunity cost (fewer hours at work; a part time job with no benefits vs. a lousy job WITH benefits) was required to attend the CC.
I think it’s delusional to assume that a kid who has spent four semesters at a Community College, taken out loans, and not completed a degree/certificate program is somehow in a good place. Their employment prospects are terrible. They have college loans.
Sure, there are adults at CC taking Mandarin for fun or to become eligible for a promotion at work. There are adults taking “business law” to see if they could translate their paralegal skills and certificate into a better job. But these aren’t the people who show up in the statistics of being in-debt and not having made SAP towards completion.
But as an excursion- if you really care about the CC system in your area- sit in on a remedial class or two. See how heartbreaking it is to see the kids our HS’s have failed. 20 year olds with a HS diploma taking 9th grade math. 21 year olds who graduated from the same HS your kids did who are learning what a topic sentence is for the first time in an entry-level composition class.