Skip to comments.Higher Educationís Debt Kiss
Posted on 02/21/2014 9:39:07 AM PST by Academiadotorg
The U. S. Department of Education wants for-profit colleges to prove that their graduates are gainfully employed. For their part, the for-profits claim that their non-profit counterparts would fail such a test.
Specifically, the Association of Private Sector Colleges & Universities (APSCU) names four which it predicts would fail:
George Washington University; Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg; The University of Michigan; and Virginia Commonwealth University.
The Department is proposing minimum standards to help ensure that these programs prepare students for employment and have earnings sufficient to repay their student loan debt, the Department of Education explains. These proposed regulations are designed to protect students from attending programs that leave them with high debt but without the means to pay it back.
The regulations will limit subsidies that taxpayers provide to students to attend programs that are not performing. Finally, these standards and reporting requirements will motivate institutions to improve the performance and value of these occupational programs.
Yet and still, according to APSCU, An October National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report found:
26% of bachelors degree recipients from public four-year institutions who were repaying their loans would fail a 12% debt-to-earnings test; 39 % at private nonprofits would fail a 12% debt-to-earnings test; 35% at private-sector institutions would fail a 12% debt-to-earnings test; Yet the Department has proposed an 8 percent debt-to-earnings metrics threshold as the government standard for affordable debt.
The NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education.
Ask one...ask all. And, if “For Profit” is the label applied to some schools, perhaps “For Idiocy” should be applied to places such as Columbia (after all, they admitted the Obamadork, thereby exposing their lack of scholarship standards).
The results will most probably be equally appalling.
If a small private college in Michigan can do it, then why can't bigger institutions?
The most incompetent, bumbling sorry sack of a president in America’s history, who runs the most incompetent administration imaginable, arrogantly wants to monitor the operation and efficacy of America’s successful, profitable media newsrooms and its 200 year old colleges.
Over the past few years I’ve noticed very few college students work thier way through.
or even work part-time and summers to help pay expenses.
Many public universities are still within reach for students who are working their way through - at least as commuters.
But whereas when I went to school, I could pay my entire tuition, even without any scholarship money, out of my earnings at minimum wage for 20-hour per week part-time work (tuition of $3600 annually against a minimum wage that was over $3 per hour when I graduated), to earn enough money to pay the tuition at my alma mater today ($38K per year, doesn't include room or board), at minimum wage, I'd have to work 100 hours per week.
College, especially private colleges and out-of-state public schools, have far outstripped the earning power of folks with high school diplomas. What was possible when I went to school (late ‘70s, early ‘80s) - work part-time and go to a private university full-time, and pay as you go - isn't possible now.
But even full-time at my own state flagship school, commuting, not living on campus, would require nearly 30 hours per week at minimum wage to pay the entire tuition bill. And regrettably, there are fewer and fewer jobs available for folks that will allow someone to work 30 hours per week, due to DeathCare by the anti-Christ.
I guess my point is, when working part-time can achieve most or all the tuition money, it seems like a good idea.
When working part-time isn't going to pay for more than a small percentage of tuition, well, in for a dime, in for a dollar.
If tuition is $25K, and working half-time only nets $5K or $6K after taxes and expenses, it still leaves a big bill at the end of the day. So, why knock yourself out to finish with maybe $80K in loans instead of $100K in loans?
Why not focus on studies? Nowadays, the bachelor degree has been sufficiently devalued that increasing number of folks feel the need to go to grad school. But, at least in some fields, grad school can be selective. So, better to take on the marginal extra debt, but do better in undergrad, and have a chance at a decent grad school.
In education, however, some of these students may be smarter than you think. The regime has set up any number of ways to reduce or eliminate student loan debt as a teacher, if you teach in the approved places. Suffering through five years of teaching in an “underprivileged” school can eliminate much, or even all student loan debt. There are other programs to reduce and ultimately eliminate debt, as well. Some of these are income-contingent based. You pay a percentage of your income for ten years, and at the end, the balance is wiped out. Of course, you have to work in something "approved" by the regime, like,... well,... working for the government!
In that case, why not load up on the debt? You're not going to be paying it all back, anyway!
I worked nearly full time while an undergraduate. I graduated with more money in the bank than when I started school. But between scholarships, comparatively low tuition (in comparison to the present day), my parents’ contribution, and work, I was able to pay tuition without loans, maintain a car, and have a social life, besides.
For most kids, that's just not in the cards. If they want to go to a private university, debt rears its ugly head.
All the incentives are different. Folks respond to incentives.