If you try Harvard’s net price calculator, you will see that it expects a $4,600 student (work) contribution from domestic students, regardless of other financial circumstances (minimum net price for a maximum financial aid student is $4,600). It is actually typical for colleges to expect a student (work and/or federal direct loan) contribution in the financial aid package.
I would guess even Harvard’s full-need FA packages include work-study, so these students are paying for those snow boots and at least some of the tickets home. To qualify for 0 EFC, you really need to be quite poor.
Many of the for-profit schools are on there because they have lots of students and each student has a lot of debt and the portion of students who have a degree with income potential is low. From a taxpayer point of view (and I think that is most of the outrage about student loan defaults, the fact that we are likely to have to bail out a whole host of people who have given these schools loan proceeds), all three are a big concern. Of those $35 billion, if 50 or 60% default, that is a lot of money. That could be used for better things.
Penn State default rate is only 8%.
With respect to the two CCs or two sets of CC students, I am sure this varies a great deal based on location and even selectivity of the CCs. The “good” ones likely have more 4 year aspirers, the inner city more trying to get a decent paying job folks. If one CC has more of the 1st set of students, you likely have better stats on loan repayments or 2 year graduation or other factors than another CC with much lower academically qualified students. I think the use of "good’ or simple metrics is a bit misleading. And personally I do support providing opportunities for those born into less advantaged communities …
[QUOTE=""]
If you try Harvard's net price calculator, you will see that it expects a $4,600 student (work) contribution from domestic students, regardless of other financial circumstances (minimum net price for a maximum financial aid student is $4,600). It is actually typical for colleges to expect a student (work and/or federal direct loan) contribution in the financial aid package.
[/QUOTE]
This jibes with an article in Time a few years ago about an incredible kid who was abandoned by her parents. She was admitted to Harvard but still was expected to come up with some dollar contribution (albeit very small).
I think it is fair to expect a contribution of $4K a year from a student (in the context of work-study program).
Even my weenie kid was able to swing that.
[QUOTE=""]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah - that makes you want to cry (especially for all your tax dollars expended on K-12). A few years ago, I was helping my relative’s kid with his second-year CC math. I notice that the class was using the same text book as my kid’s 8th grade text book (and no, my kid was not on any special accelerated math track). Apparently, the kids in the CC class were having a lot of issues understanding and solving system of equations with 3 variables - sigh.
Remind me what this student loan crisis is again?
Only 70% of the 2015 graduates have college debt and the average college debt for those people is $35,000.
Not trivial, but to get an education and have 4 years of living costs paid, and only come out with 35k, that is a bargain.
Of course, that doesn’t include the 30% who graduate with no debt.
I know, I know, the news shows some sob story of someone who graduates in 6 years with $250k of debt and no job prospects, but remember, for every one of those sob stories, there are about 9 students who have debt around 8k (in order to bring the average to around 35k).
This headline is just another example of people trying to duck personal responsibility.
No, these schools are not driving anything.
What is driving the “crisis” is that there are people who want to spend more on something than they can afford. Duh.
It is like blaming Ferrari for having an expensive car and having too many people go in debt to buy one.
Clearly what these schools should do is do what that for-profit school did. Even though 4 of 6 schools in the US were failing, they paid Clinton $16M to be their Honorary Chancellor. And it worked, they did NOT make this list!!
Doesn’t seem to be the case. Average undergraduate borrowing per student for 2013…
Penn State University Park - $35,430
University of Pittsburgh - $34,623
Temple University - $34,382
University of Scranton - $39,703
Fordham University - $38,628
Tufts University - $24,266
The majority of poor kids do NOT go to college for free.
Unfortunately for your politically-addled theory, Walden University appears on the list as #2.
NYU and USC are reasonably difficult to get into and the cost of living is highest in the world. I don’t think you can say those sharp students are being exploited or taken advantage of.
I think far more egregious is the fact that public comm. colleges (sub 20% grad rate) and directional U’s (sub 60% 6-year grad rate) let in everyone and allow half of their “students” to churn 100-level courses for 1-12 semesters to collect the financial aid refunds … while maxing out federal loans. They all actively exploit low-capacity students.
Re post 29. There are lots of reasons for low graduation rates at these schools. Many kids work while subsidizing thei educations. Some transfer to other schools so don’t show up in the graduation rate statistics as graduated. Many take more than six years to complete their degrees because they can’t attend full time due to finances.
I think you are being very narrow minded in your thinking.
ETA…for some…attending college is not a race to the finish line. It is a journey. Some students come into their own later in the process than others.
Thank goodness for the CC and directional university options for those students who need them…for whatever reason.
Also, you can’t get federally funded aid at a CC for 12 terms because you would far exceed he requirements for a degree from the school.
The full report is located here (download the pdf)
http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/looney-yannelis-student-loan-defaults
There is a lot more information in that report that what is being discussed at various websites, including the number of borrowers. And while NYU and flagship graduates are paying off their debt, many of the for-profit schools just aren’t.
I wonder why Nova Southeastern is so high on the list. They aren’t cheap but $37k covers tuition, room and board. Isn’t that pretty average for a private school or out of state rate at a flag ship?
This might explain the for-profits where tuition isn’t much more than can be borrewed/Pell, but the non-profit colleges and universities with the $65k/yr costs are not relying much on the $6k per year a student can borrow. That’s less than 10%.
But parents can borrow a lot! And grad school…you can borrow a lot!
These listed schools only seem to be in business to get kids to take those loans to pay tuition. Housing/mortgage crisis in the making!!
True but taxpayers aren’t on the hook for parent loans. Grad school…yeah that’s a different animal in terms of loans but it doesn’t affect undergrad tuition hikes, IMO.
My oldest son is attending a CC. It works out ~ $6K a year for 10 3 credit classes not including room/board and books. We are paying for everything and find that pretty affordable although we are decent earners. There is plenty of downtime for DS to work ~20 hours a week for 30 weeks which at minimum wage pays $5400 a year - almost the entire cost of the tuition.
Show me the gun that is forcing student and parents to go to these expensive schools…
How did the conversation change? When did it become normal to borrow to pay for college?
I remember, 20 years ago, when borrowing for college wasn’t “normal” but something you did only for a special situation- like attending a private college. Attending your public university did not require borrowing. I think most adults on this forum remember what it was like to afford college tuition, room, and board, thanks to a part time job and a family contribution that didn’t overtax the family finances (even if it wasn’t horrible). The idea was that if you were smart enough to get into your flagship, your were a good investment for the State to make, hoping you’d stay and pay higher taxes to pay that investment back. I remember reading an old book where the public college cost $300 tuition a semester and a brand new car cost $3,000, and that was “full cost” because there was financial aid (grants, not loans). If we bring that up to today using the brand new car as a parameter, it’s like tuition should be $3,000 a semester at most, and lower for those with middle to lower income. Wouldn’t it be a nice “new normal”? If our parents and grandparents were able to do it, why can’t we?
Actually, the kids whose parents’ income is 90K has to pay less than $9,000 a year to attend Harvard. If they have 50K loans, it’s because something’s wrong with them. At Harvard and other “superaid” colleges, students basically get free tuition up to 180K incomes.
Kids whose parents make 30K or less are in a very bad situation: either they’re exceptional, or their opportunities are very limited. Many universities will expect their families to pay 20 to 25K. Obviously, unless all die overnight, that’s not going to happen.
Before anybody weighs in further about how good poor kids have it, it’d be good to read a book such as The New Kids, which takes place at an international high school in NYS (then remember NYS is exceptional in its dedication to ensure smart, lower income kids get to attend college in measure with their hard work and smarts). Or volunteer their services to guidance counselors at their lower-income high school. Or offer help for sophomores, juniors, and seniors who attend/volunteer at the local boys&girls club.
For most lower income students, starting at a community college actually decreases the odds of completing a degree. being in a 4-year environment, preferably away from the previous lower SES/low expectation environment and on a residential campus where many if not most students hope to graduate with a degree (even if it takes them more than 4 years) has a very positive effect. In fact, a high SES, bottom results students has greater odds of graduating from a 4 year college than a TOP results, bottom SES student. How is the system not broken? And how is advocating community college as a solution for bright, lower income students helping? (I’m thinking of President Obama’s plan about CCs, which probably comes from a good intention but seems all kinds of wrong for traditional students. It does seem good for adults who never went to college and are trying to retrain or re-enter the workforce. But I find it scary for lower income students when you examine the research.)
Many community colleges do not prepare students for 4-year transfers. They may, nominally, do so, but when all math classes are remedial and there’s only one calculus class (calc1) with one section for the whole year, you know their goal isn’t to help you transfer to a 4-year university. In some states, community colleges are mostly tech/retraining schools and the “commute then proceed to the flagship” process that’s well-travelled in CA, goes through other means.
For example, in Texas, students who are below the flagship level yet want to attend one of the 4-year publics can go through a “cap” program (or others with different names), whereby they start at a less selective campus and, after one year, can move on to the “bigger name”. In Pennsylvania, students who want to attend the flagship and don’t qualify right away can attend a “branch campus”, which is a small, commuter campus with more remedial classes and mostly entry-to-major and gen ed classes. Community colleges’ primary goal, in many states, is to educate students who will fill needed job through short-term certificates or professional AS degrees, plus offer remedial education. It’s no secret the upper middle class overwhelmingly chooses solutions other than community college for their offspring, even the lazy/not very gifted ones. So, when using community colleges as evidence there’s no college cost/college debt crisis, you have to specify in which state and for whom.
It seems to me that what a reasonable amount for a public university’s tuition is, shouldn’t be thought of in relation to possible loans, but indexed to median income in an area.
Many parents here find it outrageous that they are expected to pay 30% of their income, right? So, why couldn’t tuition be indexed to 20% of an area’s median income? Private colleges could still do whatever they want.
Of course, states should resume funding to their 2005 levels to achieve anything close to that - the total budget contribution should be shifted from the lump sumn most families are currently paying, to the more gradual state funding (yes, I know that comes from taxes - but we pay taxes anyway, so at least they’d be of direct use by reducing college costs. New York residents have “cheap and reliable” SUNYs for a reason, consistent state funding. Nearby, Pennsylvanians have “expensive” flagships due to disinvesting from the State. In 2004, tuition at Penn State, instate, was $7,000. Ten years later, it was $17,000. And don’t expect financial aid, even in state, or even merit aid. Many Pennsylvanians find that attending a SUNY even with OOS costs, is a better bargain. Win-win for New York State: higher tuition, future higher tax-payers.)
As you can tell by my long post, I’m rather flabbergasted that one may think there is no problem with college costs, public universities’ tuition, or the fact students now routinely take on loans to pay for college.
The presence of loans in and of themselves doesn’t bother me. Someone who works for me just took out a huge loan to buy an engagement ring for his fiance. Neither of them can afford it; neither of them are particularly bothered by the fact that they’ll be paying for this ring for years.
I’ve got neighbors who don’t cook but who have taken out loans for fancy kitchens; they buy their kids new cars when they turn 17, financed by loans.
People borrow for all sorts of crazy things- so all things being equal, borrowing for college seems like a much better way to finance something which can pay off for decades (vs. the appliances which depreciate quickly or the new car which will have a wreck very soon if the statistics on new drivers are predictive).
So I think looking at college borrowing as inherently bad is a mistake. The behind it- which I think is NOT a mistake, is how much education to people need in order to evaluate college loans appropriately. The people I know in debt up to their eyeballs are mathematically challenged, in deep denial about their earnings prospects both near and long term, AND very uninformed about how to manage debt long term (i.e. once you’ve taken out that Parent Plus Loan, you need to cut up your credit cards or at least dial back all non-essential spending. If you don’t, all it takes is one missed paycheck or your hours at work cut back or a broken muffler on your car and then the death spiral begins.)
A bunch of my nieces and nephews took out loans- both undergrad and grad- paid them off either on time or early. Lived inexpensively for a few years after graduating, accelerated their payments with every raise, learned to cook so that their social lives didn’t revolve around expensive restaurant tabs, and lived in places with good public transportation so they didn’t need cars (a hugely expensive proposition for a young person- parking, insurance, etc.). An occasional ZipCar to stock up on groceries.
It wasn’t rocket science. You have a lot of debt because you’ve invested in your own intellectual capital. Live modestly until you pay it off.
Voila.
But I shudder to think of what would have happened if they hadn’t graduated in four years, took lengthy time away from college which then got them off sequence in their course selection, transferred, or didn’t understand that they weren’t going to be living a life like young people on TV when they graduated. Debt- fine. But then thrift.
College debt is a good thing when handled appropriately.