Recovery threatened by runaway student loan debt

[dipsydoodle]

Source: AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal student loan program seemed like a great idea back in 1965: Borrow to go to college now, pay it back later when you have a job.

But many borrowers these days are close to flunking out, tripped up by painful real-life lessons in math and economics.

Surging above $1 trillion, U.S. student loan debt has surpassed credit card and auto-loan debt. This debt explosion jeopardizes the fragile recovery, increases the burden on taxpayers and possibly sets the stage for a new economic crisis.

With a still-wobbly jobs market, these loans are increasingly hard to pay off. Unable to find work, many students have returned to school, further driving up their indebtedness.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STUDENT_LOAN_BUBBLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-03-03-30-49

[NJCher]

1. another result

The article states that these loans are propping up high tuition.

As a college teacher, I can see this.

I read almost every article that comes out on student loan debt. One thing none of them mention is how allowing this easy money for tuition seems to facilitate a very marginal student. Their lack of commitment to the class never ceases to amaze me.

The student loan debacle is a horrible situation and it needs to be straightened out. We are talking about no less than our "human resources" of tomorrow. In true republican fashion, however, they want to turn a blind eye to a very big problem.


Cher

[SomeGuyInEagan]

36. A big part of this is "predatory institutions" ...

For-profit schools which blatantly lie to prospective students about transferability of credits, worth of their degrees and job placement, share fill out aid applications on students' behalf (sometimes without the knowledge of the students), charge tuition much higher (for an education inferior to) community colleges, etc.

Some of these "schools" look for fully-accredited schools in financial trouble to step in and buy, then apply their business model (see first sentence). The students in these "schools" have a much higher loan default rate than those who attend non-profits.

Watch Frontline's "College, Inc." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/)

This is part of what led to the U.S. Senate hearings in the fall of 2010.

Another part is the continual erosion of money from states to state public schools. Forty years ago, a student at a public school paying full tuition (no loans or grants) typically paid about 30-40% of the actual cost of the education with the state taking up the rest. Today, it is flipped, worse in some states.

[Gibby]

2. This whole economic mess is the fault of students and their...

learning of lib facts and stuff, as every 'conservative' Republican imagines -- thanks to the bleatings of Chairman Rush and assorted other Republican propagandists...

[Orrex]

4. Nothing wrong with education--that's not the point of the article

The problem is that the loans used to pay for that education are inescapable and wildly out of proportion with the value of the education obtained.

[BB_Troll]

7. Well said...

my observation is in line with that thought. Some degrees struggle to pay for themselves.

[lunatica]

9. Which ones are those?

The ones where students aren't able to get jobs? Why would not being able to get a job in today's economy be the fault of the students?

[Orrex]

24. I don't think that was the intent of the post

Didn't seem to me that anyone was blaming the student. Quite the opposite, in fact; the degree that they spent tens of thousands of dollars to obtain has depreciated hugely, to the point that many degrees can't get you a job with sufficient earning power to repay the loan that paid for the over-priced degree in the first place.

[BB_Troll]

28. Some bachelors degrees are worth more than others on the day after graduation.

I have a friend who earned a Bach of Art in Psychology, a great field of study. But no one told him that he would have to spend more than the $40k+ to get a position better than a 3rd shift "Tech" at the County Mental Unit, which paid $8.75 per hour at the time. It was a government job. In order to earn respectable money, he would have had to get his Masters and PhD, which would cost him another 30k minimum.

Degrees in most humanities do not pay for themselves. It's a nasty little secret that's not really a secret. I don't know how to fix it but I know it's there. Through personal experience I find many people that have degrees based in the humanities (English, History, Sociology, Psychology, etc.) have to work in unrelated fields to pay the bills.

[Nihil]

58. "Degrees in most humanities do not pay for themselves."

> Degrees in most humanities do not pay for themselves.
> It's a nasty little secret that's not really a secret.

That's true but not necessarily how you meant it.

Humanities degrees bring in far more money to the university than they cost
the university to provide. This is necessary in order to balance out the fact
that science & engineering degrees bring in far less money to the university
than they cost the university to provide. (Think for a moment about all of the
equipment needed for your favourite science subject.)

That's an unfortunate yet unavoidable situation as if science & engineering
degrees were priced in terms of their *actual* cost then only the children of
millionaires would ever be able to study them.

(Mind you, keep putting up the student fees in the UK and you'll get the
same result by default.)

[BB_Troll]

59. "This is necessary in order to balance out... "

Good point. One I had not considered yet.

Also, even though most Science-based classes require a "lab fee", I won't be surprised to find that the fee is more decorative than the actual cost incurred.

[SATIRical]

34. Not inescapable

Our son works part time at minimum wage and goes to the local state school and so far is keeping his head above water.

Granted, he lives with us and not everyone lives close enough to a college to do that. If that were the case he would have to get roommates and probably spread it out over 5 years instead of 4

[Orrex]

39. Commendable, but not really relevant

We're not discussing the rare ability of a few people to avoid incurring the loans in the first place; we're talking about people who were deceived into taking the loans and who then spend decades or more trying to pay them off. Bravo to those who, through whatever means they use, manage to avoid taking them out in the first place. Their reward is a lifetime without having Sallie May hounding them.


I should have added that certain public sector jobs can help ammeliorate these loans as well, and that's great work if you can get it. Not everybody can, though. For those who can't the loans are effectively inescapable

[SATIRical]

41. It's not rare

Pretty much any HS grad who lives in a city with a state college/university (and especially if there is a community college) can do it. If he/she is doing something with his/her life without demanding too much of the parents, most parents would let them continue to live there.

People are "deceived" into taking the loans? Then they need to sue for fraud. If not, then they weren't deceived. They just apparently did not read the terms of the loan they were taking out. Anyone capable of getting into college should be capable of reading the terms of the loan. At some point adults have to take responsibility for their decisions.

But I'll concede your point. IF a person isn't rich and HAS to go to a private school, can't work part time, and apparently cannot read the terms of a loan, then yes, the loan is inescapable...

[SomeGuyInEagan]

44. Yes, deceived. In some cases, at least.

See post #36, above.

There is a growing number of for-profit higher education institutions whose business practices not only embrace deception, but also fraud (falsifying sigs on finaid forms). The students from those schools have a much higher student loan default rate than the non-profits. People do sue, but the courts are slow. This is why the U.S. Senate held hearings on the matter in fall 2010 (what came out of that, despite the hopes of students, parents and those in non-profit higher ed were mandates which further assist the for-profits by handcuffing the non-profits as the lobbyests got a toe hold). Watch the Frontline show cited in #36, above. It is a really sleazy (but profitable) business model.

Also, cost for the public vary state-to-state as state support varies. In constant dollars, my students pay their full tuition pay a far greater percentage of the true cost of their education today than I did in the early '80s as a student without grants/scholarship. Generally speaking, people of my generation who paid full tuition at a state public school paid about 30-40% of the cost through tuition (those a bit older were closer to 30%). Today, students in the same situation generally have to cover 60-70% of the cost. That is because states have been pulling funding from the schools over the past 40 years.

This is for two- and four-year degrees.

The largest public school in my state - the University of Minnesota - gets less than 20% of its total budget from the state. The rest is from tuition, research and fundraising (they are lucky as not many community and technical colleges can count on that), which varies by college. And each year they get cut more.

[Orrex]

45. Spoken like someone who hasn't had to deal with student loans in any real way

Bully for you.

Explain to me exactly how an 18-year-old who's never had a car loan nor a credit card bill can reasonably be expected to comprehend and anticipate the realities of a $50,000 loan that can't be discharged. Perhaps you'll blame that young person's parents who, I presume, are expected to understand the intricacies of finance regardless of their own life experiences. That's simply blaming the victim.

The lender should be required to provide an amortization schedule so that the student who accepts a $10,000 loan will see how it can easily turn into $40,000 of debt.

Not all deception legally qualifies as fraud--it's naive and disingenuous to assert otherwise. Deception can occur simply by omitting or overstating facts, such as colleges do when they claim that a communications degree will be sufficient to repay $60,000 in loans. Or when the lenders don't make clear at the outset that the loans can follow you for six decades or more.


I have never asserted that the borrower has no responsibility, but the burden upon the borrower is grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained from the debt.

I suppose someone will at this point offer up the dubious claim that a college degree will earn the graduate an extra million over a lifetime. I'm prepared to refute that claim as well.

[SATIRical]

46. So an 18-year-old doesn't understand how much $50,000 is?

When I was in college, I took out a $12K loan. You can bet I knew all of the details of that loan before signing on that line.

So you think an 18-year-old who has just been through 12 years of schooling and has done plenty of research papers shouldn't have to be bothered with finding the details of borrowing that much money?

Really?

Granted, it would be nice if the lender provided all of that information without being asked, but if not, the borrow should ask. And if the lender doesn't provide it, you don't take the loan. It is that simple.

Here, try something. Type "student loan rules" into Google. And then "student loan details". You'll find a wealth of information on the first pages.

[Orrex]

47. Right, and your situation defines everyone else's

In my entire youth and 12 years of schooling I heard not a single word about the hideous burden of student loans. Instead, I heard the constant drumbeat of "you absolutely have to get a four year degree if you want to have any sort of life at all." That may not be the truth of reality, but it's exactly the message foisted on countless high school sophomores and juniors. Blame the slogan chanters who feed this line of bullshit to the students and who thereby steer them into decades of debt.

So you think an 18-year-old who has just been through 12 years of schooling and has done plenty of research papers shouldn't have to be bothered with finding the details of borrowing that much money?

How many banks will give car loans to 18-year-olds with no jobs? How many mortgages? How many places will let that 18-year-old rent a car? If you think that the average 18-year-old is fully equipped to make life-altering economic decisions, then I'll need you to provide the name of the 18-year-old who does your taxes and manages your portfolio for you.

Wall Street experts with advanced degrees in accounting have fucked up in their investments and investments made on behalf of others, so if you're content to lay this trillion-dollar inescapable loan burden at the feet of the 18-year-old who--in your assessment--was too lazy to anticipate worldwide economic phenomena 20 years in advance, then more power to you.

Again, you're being naive.


Here: try something else: go back to the time when I was in college and try Googling Google, and tell me how many hits you get.



As is typical of the victim-blamers, you extrapolate from your own atypical conditions and deride anyone who didn't likewise enjoy the same set of circumstances that allowed you to prosper. Apparently you've got yours, jack, and to hell with the rest.

[SATIRical]

49. OK, since you want to make it all about you

Let me ask this: did you read all of the loan papers before signing them?

When I signed my loan, it was also before Google. And yes, I read every word. Just as I did with my mortgage. That's what responsible people do. If they don't it is at their peril and there is no excuse for not reading every word and investigating the things you don't understand.

Also, are you telling ne you didn't know what a loan was after 12 years of school? Sure, you might not know the details of student loans but that is why we had things called "libraries" and newspapers.

You realize you are trying to defend people that you claim blindly followed slogans without looking into it.

Now, getting back to the modern world, people do not have to anticipate what the world looks like in 20 years to decide whether to take out loans. The $1T in student loans is not from students who carefully looked at the job market and earning potential for their major and then decided if they could really afford to go to the private school versus going about it a different way. Sure there are a few cases where the market turned sour for a few majors, but that is not the majority of the cases.

But many are for those who chose to go to a private school to "find themselves" and dabble in a major that might interest them. Or a major that they chose simply because it was easy.

And that is great if you can afford it. But most of us can't.

[Orrex]

51. I'm not making it "all about me"

Unless you think that I'm personally carrying $1T in student loan debt. Apparently all of those thousands of individuals are lazy and irresponsible, so fuck 'em because they deserve what they get.

Do you accept that predatory lenders and hard-charging colleges bear no responsibility for this debacle? The entirety of the situation weighs on the backs of those former 18-year-olds who lacked your atypical economic foresight and guidance?

You realize you are trying to defend people that you claim blindly followed slogans without looking into it.

On the contrary, I'm asserting--correctly--that young and vulnerable high school students were steered awry by people that they should have been able to trust--guidance counselors and parents and educators, not to mention the predatory lenders and universities eager to scoop up barrels of cash and to hell with the value of the degree offered in return. Nope. None of these people are at fault--the ill-advised 18-year-old is solely and exclusively responsible.

Any school that has exaggerated the earning/employability potential of its degrees bears responsibility for the mountain of loan debt. Any lender that has misrepresented the ease of repayment bears responsibility.

If I'd accidentally killed someone on the same date that I signed my student loans, it's likely that I would already have fulfilled my debt to society, but you seem to think that the ill-advised stroke of a pen is worthy of a lifetime of economic suffering.


Your smug and self-righteous attitude frankly disgusts me.

By the way, do you read every word of every user's agreement agreement that you click to accept? Did you read every word of your cellphone agreement? Did you read every word of DU's terms of service? If you claim yes to all of these, I simply don't believe you, and we can conclude this discussion.

Further, we're not even talking about the mortgage that you read from cover to cover--which I also don't believe--we're talking about a loan that is uniquely inescapable for no good reason at all. Let student loan debt be subject to bankruptcy, and then we can talk about their equivalency to other debt instruments.

[SATIRical]

52. If reading the loan document and terms is atypical

then we need to do away with all loans. Apparently the typical person isn't responsible enough to handle a loan (if they even know what one is after 12 years of schooling).

I don't know why you choose to call them lazy and irresponsible. I don't feel that way about them since most people do pay off their student loans.

But are the "predatory lenders" responsible? Only if they commit fraud. And then that is determined in court and the student owes nothing. If they are not committing fraud, then they are not "predatory". They are just lenders and the terms of the loans are on the document the borrower signs.

And no, I don't read every user's agreement. However, if they have my real information to track back to me as an individual, then yes I do.

Can you get MORE hyperbolic? Someone lending you money is "a lifetime of economic suffering. " Oh, please. You certainly do not have to worry about me ever making you suffer.

I'm sorry that expecting people to read things before signing them or looking at the implications of borrowing large sums of money disgust you. Frankly, your cavalier attitude toward it, and then your audacity to whine because they didn't FORCE you to read what you were signing disgusts me.

Hey, but at least that big loan got you to some rockin' parties, right?

[Orrex]

53. You can stuff your assumptions up your self-righteousness

The fact that you opt for wild broadsides against what you assume you know about me demonstrates clearly that you have no point to make and are instead interested only in blaming the victims of predatory lenders.

I am inclined at this time to call you something that would put me in violation of the TOS, which you haven't read anyway, so instead I'll simply note that you don't know what you're talking about, and you are apparently incapable of thinking beyond broad strokes and generalizations.

And "a lifetime of economic suffering" most certainly isn't hyperbolic. It's objective fact for those who, unlike you, are familiar with it and have seen it first hand.

[limpyhobbler]

56. "adults have to take responsibility for their decisions"

Just because a person made a very bad financial decision early in life by taking out a big bank loan for a worthless college degree, that does not mean they should have to spend the rest of their life in debt slavery to a bank, making payments on something that has no value. There should be some way to plea for help, for a chance to start over.

Also any number of unpredictable events can intervene to change the course of one's life and prevent them from making the money needed to pay back the loan, even if the degree itself would be otherwise valuable. Punishing people in such situations by forcing them to pay large parts of their meager income to support the opulent lifestyles of bankers is perverse.

Your statement that people need to take responsibility for their decisions is cruel. Such a view would not allow for any bankruptcy protections to protect debtors from banks. I would think such a view would be more appropriate on a Republican messageboard instead.

Nobody is trying to shirk their responsibility, but there is a limit to how much of a useless worthless piece of paper a person should be asked to pay for before it is considered cruel.

[Orrex]

3. Why do are student loans permitted to accrue interest?

Interest is, among other things, intended to offset the risk of default, but since--practically speaking--you can't ultimately default on these loans, then I don't see why the lenders are permitted to charge the interest rates that they do. Sure, you can put off repayment, but unless you're lucky enough to die or become totally and permanently disabled, then they'll get their money.

Plus thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in usuriously high penalties, also inescapable.

Here are just a few ways that the situation could be vastly improved for both the victims and the economy:

1. A system-wide forgiveness of a certain amount on each loan ($10K or $20K or whatever)

2. A general amnesty of X number of years during which the loans are suspended, accruing no interest and incurring no penalties

3. Forgiveness of all student loan penalties incurred to date

4. Making student loan debt subject to bankruptcy


Lenders of student loans are every bit as predatory as credit card companies, with the added bonus that you can be drawing nothing but social security 70 years from now and still be required to pay 30% of your gross income each month.

[sybylla]

32. That's a good question.

Student loans subsidized by the government do not start to accrue interest until you start to pay them off.

Unsubsidized loans, which are usually at a higher rate, start accruing interest the minute you get the money.

I've told my sons to avoid these kinds of loans. But some semesters they had no choice. It's all the financial aid office offered them.

OTOH, the unsubsidized loans are at a lower interest rate than some of their U.S. savings bonds (bought a decade or more ago when rates were much nicer), so as long as their unsubsidized loans don't add up to more than their savings bonds, they are probably still ahead.

[davidthegnome]

5. People often ask me why I hesitate

to go to school. I've been hesitating for years (27 now). This is why.

[JoePhilly]

15. I'm glad I didn't hesitate to go.

I graduated HS in 1981. I have a group of old friends from back then, about 14 of us. Three of us went to college. None of us could afford it with out loans.

The current net worth of the three who went to college is much higher than that of any of the others.

[laundry_queen]

30. Pay as you go.

There are lots of people in my class at school that take 1 or 2 courses at a time, as they can afford it, year round (so 4 courses per year if you take one at a time), while they work p/t or f/t. It may take 10 years but they eventually get their degrees with no debt. Although I do realize my tuition here in Canada is much less than in the US so it's easier for us. I do with I'd have done that starting in my 20's. Now I'm full time in my mid thirties trying to do it. It's amazing that there's not more funding for post-secondary since anyone with econ 101 knows education is a social benefit that always pays back more than you put into it.

[Odin2005]

37. That is what I'm doing.

Working on a Psychology degree one course at a time.

[SATIRical]

42. Yep, that's smart (nt)

[xchrom]

6. Du rec. Nt

[Owlet]

8. I don't understand this part

Help me out here, please.

Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, said the student loan crisis may not torpedo the financial sector as the mortgage meltdown nearly did in 2008, but it could slam taxpayers and the still-ailing housing market.

"When student loans don't get repaid, debts are going to be transferred from the borrower to the taxpayer," further raising federal deficits, he said.

How so? If the student loan debt can't be discharged in a bankruptcy, how does it become a burden to anyone by the student borrower himself?

[dipsydoodle]

10. If the debt to the student is discharged

it becomes a delinquent debt to to the US government. The money is still owed , not due for for repayment by the student , but whatever is shoring up the government debt remains payable. If the whole 3 trillion were to be written off then divide that by the tax paying population and that will tell you the tax increase / capita necessary.

[Yo_Mama]

23. Just because the debt is non-dischargeable, it doesn't mean you can pay.

The new theory seems to be go to the income-based repayment plans, and then eventually wipe it out.

Also you can get forbearance problems when you are unemployed/making very little money. But eventually, if you can't pay down the loan much and get a couple periods of extended unemployment in your life, you will wind up with your total balance growing.

So yes, the taxpayers are on the hook for most of this. I figure 30% will have to be wiped out, which is about 300 billion at this point.

[Yo_Mama]

25. Short answer - taxpayer is guaranteeing the debts

or making the loans directly.

[happyslug]

31. I have had clients on Social Security Disability, subject to Student loans collections

If my client is on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) then not a problem SSI can NOT be attached to pay such debts, but if the client in on Social Security Disability, then such Social Security can be attached. Most of the problem I have had with Social Security Disability involves child support, not student loans, but the law is the same for both (Except that Students loans are restricted to 25% of income, while Child support is limited to 55% of income, except if you have more then one child then 60%).

Remember this problem started in 1965, but accelerated under Reagan (Prior to Reagan, if you were low income you could get GRANTS, I came out of Collage in 1981 owning just $600 in student loans, which I had to take out to pay one semester). I tried to find employment during Reagan's recession but then went back to School in 1985, but by then I had to take out LOANS to pay for my education.

If you were 18 in 1982 (When loans replaced grants as the main means of paying for College education even for low income families) you were born in 1964, thus in 2012 you are 48 years of age, Social Security has long taken into consideration the aging process and thus makes it easier for people over age 50 to get on Social Security. 1964 is also the traditional last year for the baby boom generation (The baby boom traditionally has been from 1947 till 1964, 1947 show a big jump in birth do to the return home of Soldiers, those soldiers getting married and their wives having babies. 1965 saw a steep drop in births compared to the much slower drop from 1957, the peak year of the baby boom, to 1964, thus the traditional definition is 1947-1964 but marketers have been trying to sub-divide the group even in the 1950s thus various other definitions and divisions).

If you went to graduate school before 1982, you often had to take out loans even then. If you went to College before the mid 1970s you had to take out loans, not grants in that earlier time period (Most loans were taken by women, most men were drafted and thus eligible for the Original GI Bill).

After 1975 the GI Bill was abolished (and has been "Reinstated" at least twice since that date, but no were near what a Veteran received under the Original GI Bill). If you served before 1975 you were eligible for the original GI bill even today, but most veterans did NOT take advantage of it

The problem is the post 1975 era. If you were low Income you received grants till about 1982. If you were NOT low income you had to borrow the money (and if you were female before 1975 you had to borrow the money). A baby boom female (or a male not drafted) born in 1947 entered collage in 1965, had to borrow money to pay for collage, That person would be 65 years old in 2012.

If you were a "non-traditional" student (quite common with the break down of the Steel Industry and its related Coal Industry in the 1980s), many a 40 year old male had to return to College (without the GI Bill) borrow student loan to get a job that paid something close to what they earned in the Steel mills or the Coal Fields. It is now 30 years later and these "Non-Traditional Students of the 1980s" are now in the 70s, many with extensive outstanding student loans.

As you can see, they are many people with students loans who are into their final years of life. When they die, these students loans are still outstanding. Before the recent take over of the Student loans by the Federal Government, these were owned to banks, which sold them to each other. When the ex-student dies, the Federal Government has to pay up. Thus these debts are slowly become the cost of the US Government. Or as one expert has commented "The Chickens of NOT looking into details on how the student is doing in school have come home to roost". The Government has done everything they could to defer this to the next administration, but death of the former student makes it something that MUST be recognized today. With more and more ex-students with outstanding student loans hit their 60s and 70s, more and more of them die. Forcing the Government to recognize that the debt can no longer be paid back.

[Snake Alchemist]

33. I am starting to have doubts that you went to "collage". nt

[happyslug]

40. Collage?College?It is a sign of a lack of education if you can only spell a word one way, S. Johnson

Ode to a Spell Checker

I have a spelling checker
I disk covered four my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot see.
Eye ran this poem threw it.
Your sure real glad two no.
Its very polished in its weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

A checker is a blessing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays comes posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are not maid too wine.

And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults in awl this peace,
Of nun eye am a wear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

That's why eye brake in two averse
Caws Eye dew want too please.
Sow glad eye yam that aye did bye
This soft wear four pea seas.

--Author Unknown

[NJCher]

55. Clever!

I've never seen this. I can use it in my English classes.

The way students use the spell checker is amazing to me. I watch them write in lab and they are constantly interacting with it. It's almost like a second program to help them write.

Now I, the teacher, never use one. I actually tried one tonight on a resume/cover letter, though, and the only thing it brought up was my name and my street.

Anyway, thanks for posting that.


Cher

[happyslug]

60. I have to watch Does not and Trail/Trial

I often out the space in the wrong spot when typing "Does NOT", and "Doe Snot" are two correctly spelled words. I also have to watch that to make sure I am taking a Trail to get to court for a Trial, NOT a trial to a trail.

As to Spelling, I am still proud of my Grade School Spelling grades, Extremely precise. I was in Grade School in the late 1960s.

One meaning of precision means consistent results, if you do an experiment over and over again, and get the same results, it is considered a very accurate and precise test.

Thus my Grade School Spelling test were PRECISE AND ACCURATE for the results were ALWAYS THE SAME. NEVER VARIED, always the same. When my niece was in Grade School I brought this up to show I could help her with her spelling, My Mother turned to me and said, "An E is still an E!!!"

Great thing about Spelling tests, how few words you can spell correctly if the first time you look at them is when you have to write all the words correctly that you missed on the test (i.e. I never looked at them till AFTER the test).

Now, in Second Grade the teacher said that for Spelling tests the School was no longer going by percentages, but one wrong a B, two wrong a C, three wrong a D, four wrong an E. I hated it when I heard of that change and refused to even look at the Spelling book from that date forward. I already has an understanding of percentages, and thus like percentages not some arbitrary number system.

I always took the test, and ever so often get one or two words correct, but never studied for the test. I continued my protests till the school stopped giving spelling test after sixth grade.

That protest did teach me one thing, you have to SPEAK UP and make it clear that you are protesting, in all my years of taking Spelling tests not one of my teachers ever asked my why I did so poorly on them. They all required me to write down the words I misspelled 10 times afterward, but never asked my why I did so poorly. I should have wrote on the test I am protesting against the grading system, or said so in class, but never did. That was my fault, I should have spoke up.

On the other hand, NONE of my teachers ever asked me and I was in Grade School at the time, so the blame can be shared.

[shawn703]

12. Tom Raum is little more than a Republican mouthpiece

This is the same guy who fawned over McCain's pick of Palin for running mate and did nothing but repeat Republican talking points at the time trying to sell to America how relevant her "experience" is to being VP. Of course he's doing the same thing to help attack educational assistance for the Republicans.

http://www.salon.com/2008/09/12/raum/

[JoePhilly]

17. Republicans talk down a college education so that their base ...

decides that it doesn't want or need one.

They want them to think like this ... "Its not that I can't afford it, but that I don't need it".

This way, rich Republicans kids go to college and get the best jobs, the GOP's uneducated base stays at the bottom of the ladder, where it belongs.

[Quantess]

16. Oh, but bailing out wall street was just pocket change.

Right?

[magical thyme]

19. this part *really* pisses me off

"tripped up by painful real-life lessons in math and economics. "

I can do math and I'm not totally naive or stupid. I did my research *before* I entered the program. The particular health care field I trained in, per government statistics had:

* 14% growth projected for decade+
* median salary of $26/hour
* roughly 50/50 men/women (eg, not a "pink ghetto&quot

Per my local research via phone call to HR at closest hospital, confirmed by a classmate's call 2 years later, salary range was $19-24/hour. (Classmate was told $20-25/hour).

Per the university's own material, employment was 100% on graduation. (Of course, they never exactly said employment at *what*, but in the field is certainly implied)

The reality:

* hospitals are freezing/downsizing staff
* total pink ghetto, almost 100% women except the very top position
* HR rep overstated starting salary by 25% -- the difference was -- ta!da! -- my estimated student loan payment + savings
* there had been no raises for 4 years. I was told in job interview that there wouldn't be one for at least 18 months, if then
* only half the class had offers on graduation. With the exception of three, they were consistently verbal and part time/per diem. One of three full time offers fell through. Another of the three was working at a much lower level job than we trained for, so only a little more than half the hourly rate.
* the other half of the class had no offers in hand, some had barely gotten an interview. 8 students were applying for the 2 job openings in the university town.
* A couple of the older students (in my age range) were on the brink of losing their homes and in financial ruin.

TOO YOUNG TO RETIRE. TRIED TO RE-TRAIN. BIG MISTAKE. DON'T DO IT. IT'S ALL LIES. ALL OF IT.

The *only* thing that has bought me time to date is the Income Based Repayment program. Of course, if something doesn't break my way so that I can pay this effing loan off and walk away from this nightmare, then I'll end up paying a reduced rate for 25 years, while the loan accrues interest up the yin yang. At 25 years the loan will be forgiven and I'll owe taxes on the forgiven portion. Of course by then, interest will have increased it to well over a hundred thousand, so I'll lose my home when I'm 80 or so. Nothing like kicking the can down the road.

And, for the record, so many students applied for the Income Based Repayment program this past December that they ended up 25 days behind! It took an extra month or two for the revised loans to come through.

[raccoon]

22. I don't blame you for being p.o. What were you trained for? PM me if you want. nt

[fasttense]

20. This isn't the student's fault anymore than it was the homeowners fault during the last crash.

Remember how RepubliCONS never complain about deficits until they are out of office. Wasn't it Dick who said deficit don't matter? Wasn't it Raygun who tripled the national debt?

The last crash was caused by banksters and if we have another one, it will be caused by banksters too.

Why in the world do we allow the banksters to force our children to take on excessive debt in order to get an education? India, China, and many industrialized countries allow their children to go to college for FREE. I got an interest FREE loan through the federal government when I went to college and paid it back over 10 years. Why can't we do that now for our children? It worked then, why not now?

Have you seen the interest rates of these student loans? They are anywhere from 6.8% to 10%, and that's through the federal government. Why is it so high? I can buy a house with a 4% interest rate. Why are we charging our children almost twice that? I can get a car loan for 0% interest, why are the banksters forcing our children into debt slavery? The banksters get loans from our FED at .25% (to borrow our money) why are they charging such awful rates when they get it for practically free?

We are destroying our children's futures so that banksters can make more money. This is a moral atrocity.

[truth2power]

26. Thanks fasttense. Yes, it's starting all over again...blame the victim...

The OP says these student loans "are increasingly hard to pay off". No, they're IMPOSSIBLE to pay off unless one wins the lottery. It's obscene to graduate from college with so much debt.

When I went to college back in the 60's and 70's you could just about pay for college out of pocket. In the ensuing years, tuition has risen way out of proportion to the rate of inflation.

Just like the housing bubble, I think if one looks closely one would find the same banksters/grifters profiting from student loan debt by creating synthetic collateralized debt obligations where neither party has a material interest in the thing being insured. It's fantasy finance just like the derivative market in housing debt.

The same criminals who perpetrated the foreclosure crisis are responsible for driving up the cost of college tuition, IMO. And neither Congress nor AG Holder & Co. are willing to do anything about it.

[enlightenment]

27. And the government just out-sourced the

management of the debt to third-party private companies, apparently.

Like many others, I live with this debt albatross around my neck, but felt some small comfort that I was dealing only with the government in paying it off (or, rather, trying to . . .), since none of it was 'private' debt. All my letters came from Direct Loan and the website was .gov.

Received a letter the other day informing me that the management of my loan had been handed off to some company I've never heard of - a few days later, a friend in similar situation received a letter informing her that her loan had gone to a different company.

I tried looking when this change was approved, but didn't have much luck. I'm sure it was reported somewhere, but I'm damned if I know where.

I'm not happy about it - it seems like just one more layer of potential problems.

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. The very first sentence is a lie. It was never a good idea, it was a sop

to ameliorate the inanity of pricing what was already becoming a prerequisite for normal employment, out of range for most of the people that would be needed to fill the expanding number of good positions.

A college education was the province of the upper class, and was frankly not much in demand. WWII changed that. But rather than deal with an emerging problem based on the California model. and thereby bridging a class divide and spreading the innovation and creativity that was achieved in California across the nation, it was turned into one of the first post war corporate welfare programs.

Nothing screws up a common good as well as turning it into a profit center.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

35. "Nothing screws up a common good as well as turning it into a profit center." Damn!

That should be a bumper sticker as well as the lynchpin for the Democratic Party platform nationally, regionally and locally.

May I steal it?

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. By all means, We should burn that into the brains of every single person on earth. n/t

[hunter]

38. The end of the "Reagan Revolution" begins here.

Millions of unemployed people with debts they can't discharge through bankruptcy is a recipe for social unrest.

Walking away from an upside down home mortgage is not the same thing, the bank gets the house. But nobody can walk away from student loans, the bank can't take back the education and sell it to somebody else, and they can't sell the person as a serf or a slave, although sometimes you have to wonder if that's not what the ruling classes want...

We're going to be seeing a rapid expansion of shadow economies within the U.S.A. and increasing protests of the sort we're now seeing in Greece or Spain.

The only thing that will pull us out of this fire is an FDR style New Deal Works Project Administration and a big "haircut" for holders of student loan debt.

Whoever drops the ball on this issue (and it could very well be Obama...) will be remembered as the the next Herbert Hoover.

[patrice]

48. Free. the. students!! Declare a jubilee for student debt.

Education should be free anyway!!

Grants to forgive students debt.

Free the students!!!

[and-justice-for-all]

50. That would include me...

A student loan bailout would be nice....and if they do that, I will go buy a brand new car!!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

54. They will take your student loan out of your Social Security. That is not a joke.

Hubby got a Music and Video Degree at one of the Art Institutes that advertise heavily, for-profit schools implying that you can get a job upon graduation. He already had a B.S. and M.S. in physics and math that ended in him getting laid off several times from oil companies who said they just couldn't afford all those people.

It did nothing but get him a horrible job with a take home of $20K a year. They took his student loan out of his income there.They fired him before he lost his health, after six years of administrators destroying the medical school he worked at.

Now he's on Social Security and they take his student loan debt out.

[limpyhobbler]

57. I wish somebody could turn student loan forgiveness into a political issue.

It isn't anywhere on the map really though.