ADVERTISEMENT

FC: Student loan debt surpasses $1.5 TRILLION

How about we make college cheaper instead of worrying on how much debt is required to pay for it?

The whole college debt debate is like debating how to best continue to keep your oil reservoir full but not at all focusing on the fact you have a huge leak in your oil line.

I think college is still reasonable in many places. it has been discussed here before, but there are some serious mismatches between the debt and incomes of new graduates.

if you use say 1978 $$$$, so back 40 years ago, and look at new graduate starting pay (average, sigma and mix), and then inflate to 2018 - you will be shocked. it would suggest new grads in the $100-120k range with full benefits. the deterioration of jobs did not hit the university cost right away. what should be happening is far fewer students should be going off to places and staying in dorms and taking majors that dont lead to the income to pay the debt.

Worst case scenario is a young lady in our neighborhood = attended Smith and has degree in history and minor in poly sci. she had about 10% scholarship and about 20% from savings of family = 70% of sticker for 5 years was debt. she is living with parents and teaching at a local high school (about $42k plus benefits). Her job is best case pay for her degree. I contrast this to a young man also living with his parents, but went to IIT with two engineering degrees and MBA. he lived with relatives near the school and worked in coop jobs. he graduated with under $10k of debt, and has a job paying around $85k - he will move out and right into his first house with a wife working (also an engineer with no debt). their school costs were reasonable and they did what they could afford.
 
I think college is still reasonable in many places. it has been discussed here before, but there are some serious mismatches between the debt and incomes of new graduates.

if you use say 1978 $$$$, so back 40 years ago, and look at new graduate starting pay (average, sigma and mix), and then inflate to 2018 - you will be shocked. it would suggest new grads in the $100-120k range with full benefits. the deterioration of jobs did not hit the university cost right away. what should be happening is far fewer students should be going off to places and staying in dorms and taking majors that dont lead to the income to pay the debt.

Worst case scenario is a young lady in our neighborhood = attended Smith and has degree in history and minor in poly sci. she had about 10% scholarship and about 20% from savings of family = 70% of sticker for 5 years was debt. she is living with parents and teaching at a local high school (about $42k plus benefits). Her job is best case pay for her degree. I contrast this to a young man also living with his parents, but went to IIT with two engineering degrees and MBA. he lived with relatives near the school and worked in coop jobs. he graduated with under $10k of debt, and has a job paying around $85k - he will move out and right into his first house with a wife working (also an engineer with no debt). their school costs were reasonable and they did what they could afford.

Let’s all be engineers!
 
  1. HS students are being told they have to go to college despite many great opportunities in the trades and other areas. One of my best friends never went to college and ended up working his butt off in real estate and I could only dream of having his lifestyle.
  2. College students are being given loans like candy which they accept since they are told they HAVE to go to college. My daughter's friend constantly complains about her student loan debt despite the fact she chose to go to a private college. If I have $10 in my pocket I'm going to McDonald's and not Morton's!
  3. Universities can continue to increase prices since applications continue to increase each year (see #1) by applicants with access to money (see #2). This is basic supply-and-demand economics. It finally dawned on me how much cash universities have today when taking my younger daughter on a college road trip and seeing UNF had a lazy river in one of the dorm complexes and a beautiful outdoor pool in the other.
  4. The economy has been relatively stagnant the past decade which made the increase in education far out-gain the increase in starting salaries. I graduated in the mid-80s with a Mechanical Engineering degree from PSU that cost $16K and a job starting at $19K going to $23K after six months. My older daughter graduated three years ago with an Enterprise Risk Management degree from PSU that cost $112K and a job starting around $45K.
  5. Now you have $1.5 trillion in student loan debt with a good percentage not able to make their monthly payments.
You have a vicious chain of events in #1 through #4 that leaves you at #5. Until one or more of these events changes drastically it will continue to get worse.

Disclaimer: Like some previous posters, I have lived a frugal yet comfortable life. I live in a modest house, drive a car with 250K miles, pack my lunch every day and haven't taken many exotic vacations. These are values/traits I learned from my parents and do it so both of my girls can start life with zero student loan debt (6 years down, 2 to go). I am in the camp that if the government were to forgive student loan debt that I better be getting a 6-figure check in the mail.
I could have afforded to send my kids thru with no student debt, but made them each borrow some just so they would have some skin in the game. Someday I will pay it off for them, but they dont know that. Its not a ruinous amount, just enough to keep them focussed.
 
My son worked on getting a degree at the local community college, but quit a few credits shy. My wife paid for that fiasco. He went on to take courses through an online college. His goal was to get a Bachelors degree. But, I wouldn't finance it, and told him I'll pay half upon graduation. He racked up debt, worked full time, and never finished. He's single, and works as a card dealer at a casino. He makes good money, but isn't all that ambitious.

Moral of the story is that all that student debt isn't owned by college graduates. I imagine that's where a lot of the default loans are coming from. I don't believe in loan forgiveness, but I don't think the government is working well with those they suckered in. They could lower their interest rates and tie it into their T Bond rates.
 
I could have afforded to send my kids thru with no student debt, but made them each borrow some just so they would have some skin in the game. Someday I will pay it off for them, but they dont know that. Its not a ruinous amount, just enough to keep them focussed.
Completely agree and did something similar. Told both daughters that I would pay for three years and they would pay for (hopefully) one to keep them focused and off the five year plan like their older cousin. And I was serious, but once my younger daughter transferred from Rutgers (much more expensive) to PSU and I saw how absolutely driven she is I decided to pick up their year. It is obviously making it tougher on us financially, but I've worked my whole life to support my family and see this as my last big gesture (don't even want to hear about weddings at this point)!
 
I could have afforded to send my kids thru with no student debt, but made them each borrow some just so they would have some skin in the game. Someday I will pay it off for them, but they dont know that. Its not a ruinous amount, just enough to keep them focussed.

And build a solid credit history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
Opinion piece from NBC News Re: Mick Mulvaney, the man Trump placed in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, shutting down the Office for Students and Young Borrowers, which was designed to protect student loan borrowers from predatory actors. He's also big on eliminating or reversing any protections in place for consumers from pay day lending companies, big banks, etc. Pretty sure I know how the reaction to this will go (Board Conservatives: Should study engineering, quit whining - they knew what they were getting into; not the government's job to pay for their bad decisions!!!; Board Liberals: Students need help, college is too expensive, and they should be protected from bad actors - the government lends money without providing students any recourse or guidance!!).

Anyway, enjoy (or not)!

Alexis Goldstein Student debt hurts the whole economy. So why is Trump making the problem worse?

The administration just randomly ended a successful program that protected student loan recipients from predatory companies.

The student debt burden in America is a slow-moving crisis for millennials and Gen Z, as they continue to mortgage their futures to obtain an increasingly necessary college degree. It’s clear that the current system is completely unsustainable: Just last week, outstanding student debt in America surpassed $1.5 trillion. Over 8 million borrowers are in default on their student loans, and one in four borrowers are having trouble repaying.

But instead of helping, the Trump Administration just made things even harder for America’s student loan borrowers.

On Wednesday, Mick Mulvaney, the White House official installed at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), quietly shut down the Office for Students and Young Borrowers, which was designed to protect student loan borrowers from predatory actors. Closing this office now is like shuttering the fire department in the middle of a fire.

180510-mick-mulvaney-se-235p_353e56dcb9951c8cbb0521f5ed926a02.fit-760w.jpg

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 18, 2018. Aaron P. Bernstein / Reuters file
Problems in the student loan industry are serious and systemic: Illegal activity by Navient meant borrowers had years added to their repayment; Citigroup deceived borrowers about tax benefits; and National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts sued consumers for debt the company couldn’t prove was owed or was too old for the company to go to court to collect.

Most failures in the student lending market, though, come down to two problems: A rogue industry consistently stomping on borrower rights, and a failure of public policy to address larger issues like the sheer volume of debt, bad incentives in how the government pays loan servicers and a lack of transparent, enforceable standards to ensure that those servicers are helping, not hurting borrowers. And the CFPB's Office for Students was the only place in the government tackling both these problems at once — or, really, at all, when one considers that Secretary DeVos is rolling back consumer protectionsand delaying rules meant to protect students from fraud.

The Office for Students was making a difference, spurring actions to hold bad actors in the student loan industry accountable, and getting real money back for defrauded borrowers — $750 million to be exact. The Office was crucial in referring cases to law enforcement when student loan companies broke the law. When the Department of Justice got more than $60 million returned to over 77,000 members of our military, for example, their actions were informed by a 2012 joint report by the Office for Students and the Bureau’s Office of Servicemember Affairs.

Without the Office for Students listening to borrowers and documenting problems, there is every reason to fear that enforcement actions will come to a halt.

Without the Office for Students listening to borrowers and documenting problems, there is every reason to fear that enforcement actions will come to a halt.

The Office for Students has also helped the entire country better understand the student loan market with their steady analysis of problems and policy proposals to fix them. The Office helped handle over 50,000 complaints about student loans, keeping meticulous track of the trends they spotted. Each year, after analyzing student loan complaints made by borrowers to the CFPB’s complaint database (a database Mulvaney wants to hide), the student loan ombudsman would compile a reporthighlighting the challenges borrowers face. This allowed the Office to not only paint a clearer picture of what’s currently wrong in student lending, but make concrete recommendations for ways to improve it.

For example, the office studied the kinds of problems borrowers tend to have with understanding their repayment options, and proposed a new approach called the “payback playbook” to help make student loan repayment easier and clearer.

Or, in 2015, the Office for Students took a close look at student loan servicing, top to bottom, documenting problems and outlining solutions. One of the problems they documented was that vulnerable borrowers often have trouble getting into an income-driven repayment plan that they can afford. As a result of the analysis, the Department of Education changed the contracts with these servicers to require them to be more proactive in their efforts to steer economically vulnerable borrowers into such plans, such as following up with those who submit incomplete applications, rather than just throwing those applications away.

The student debt crisis isn’t just a problem for borrowers; it’s a problem for our entire economy.

Another outcome of the 2015 report was a recommendation that the Bureau add a student loan servicing rule to its agenda — an initiative that Mulvaney also decided to snuff out on May 9, abandoning plans to regulate student loan companies.

The student debt crisis isn’t just a problem for borrowers; it’s a problem for our entire economy. The New York Fed has warned that rising student debt has caused a decline in home ownership, which in turn suppresses local economies. And when servicers fail to ensure borrowers can find repayment plans they can afford, and they fall into default, it’s also taxpayers who take the hit, as we are all ultimately on the hook for federal student loans.

Mulvaney dismantling the office is a move that deliberately makes life harder for America's 44 million student loan borrowers. At a time when student borrowers need allies in government more than ever, Mick Mulvaney and the Trump Administration have left them out in the cold.

Alexis Goldstein is a Senior Policy Analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of 200 organizations fighting for a safer and fairer economy. She also co-hosts the podcast Humorless Queers.
 
You've been watching too much CNN. Let's see if I can follow your logic:

Students get loans from the government -- good
Auto companies get loans from the government -- good
Banks get loans from the government -- bad

You saw all of that in my one sentence post?
 
Opinion piece from NBC News Re: Mick Mulvaney, the man Trump placed in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, shutting down the Office for Students and Young Borrowers, which was designed to protect student loan borrowers from predatory actors. He's also big on eliminating or reversing any protections in place for consumers from pay day lending companies, big banks, etc. Pretty sure I know how the reaction to this will go (Board Conservatives: Should study engineering, quit whining - they knew what they were getting into; not the government's job to pay for their bad decisions!!!; Board Liberals: Students need help, college is too expensive, and they should be protected from bad actors - the government lends money without providing students any recourse or guidance!!).

Anyway, enjoy (or not)!

Alexis Goldstein Student debt hurts the whole economy. So why is Trump making the problem worse?

The administration just randomly ended a successful program that protected student loan recipients from predatory companies.

The student debt burden in America is a slow-moving crisis for millennials and Gen Z, as they continue to mortgage their futures to obtain an increasingly necessary college degree. It’s clear that the current system is completely unsustainable: Just last week, outstanding student debt in America surpassed $1.5 trillion. Over 8 million borrowers are in default on their student loans, and one in four borrowers are having trouble repaying.

But instead of helping, the Trump Administration just made things even harder for America’s student loan borrowers.

On Wednesday, Mick Mulvaney, the White House official installed at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), quietly shut down the Office for Students and Young Borrowers, which was designed to protect student loan borrowers from predatory actors. Closing this office now is like shuttering the fire department in the middle of a fire.

180510-mick-mulvaney-se-235p_353e56dcb9951c8cbb0521f5ed926a02.fit-760w.jpg

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 18, 2018. Aaron P. Bernstein / Reuters file
Problems in the student loan industry are serious and systemic: Illegal activity by Navient meant borrowers had years added to their repayment; Citigroup deceived borrowers about tax benefits; and National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts sued consumers for debt the company couldn’t prove was owed or was too old for the company to go to court to collect.

Most failures in the student lending market, though, come down to two problems: A rogue industry consistently stomping on borrower rights, and a failure of public policy to address larger issues like the sheer volume of debt, bad incentives in how the government pays loan servicers and a lack of transparent, enforceable standards to ensure that those servicers are helping, not hurting borrowers. And the CFPB's Office for Students was the only place in the government tackling both these problems at once — or, really, at all, when one considers that Secretary DeVos is rolling back consumer protectionsand delaying rules meant to protect students from fraud.

The Office for Students was making a difference, spurring actions to hold bad actors in the student loan industry accountable, and getting real money back for defrauded borrowers — $750 million to be exact. The Office was crucial in referring cases to law enforcement when student loan companies broke the law. When the Department of Justice got more than $60 million returned to over 77,000 members of our military, for example, their actions were informed by a 2012 joint report by the Office for Students and the Bureau’s Office of Servicemember Affairs.

Without the Office for Students listening to borrowers and documenting problems, there is every reason to fear that enforcement actions will come to a halt.

Without the Office for Students listening to borrowers and documenting problems, there is every reason to fear that enforcement actions will come to a halt.

The Office for Students has also helped the entire country better understand the student loan market with their steady analysis of problems and policy proposals to fix them. The Office helped handle over 50,000 complaints about student loans, keeping meticulous track of the trends they spotted. Each year, after analyzing student loan complaints made by borrowers to the CFPB’s complaint database (a database Mulvaney wants to hide), the student loan ombudsman would compile a reporthighlighting the challenges borrowers face. This allowed the Office to not only paint a clearer picture of what’s currently wrong in student lending, but make concrete recommendations for ways to improve it.

For example, the office studied the kinds of problems borrowers tend to have with understanding their repayment options, and proposed a new approach called the “payback playbook” to help make student loan repayment easier and clearer.

Or, in 2015, the Office for Students took a close look at student loan servicing, top to bottom, documenting problems and outlining solutions. One of the problems they documented was that vulnerable borrowers often have trouble getting into an income-driven repayment plan that they can afford. As a result of the analysis, the Department of Education changed the contracts with these servicers to require them to be more proactive in their efforts to steer economically vulnerable borrowers into such plans, such as following up with those who submit incomplete applications, rather than just throwing those applications away.

The student debt crisis isn’t just a problem for borrowers; it’s a problem for our entire economy.

Another outcome of the 2015 report was a recommendation that the Bureau add a student loan servicing rule to its agenda — an initiative that Mulvaney also decided to snuff out on May 9, abandoning plans to regulate student loan companies.

The student debt crisis isn’t just a problem for borrowers; it’s a problem for our entire economy. The New York Fed has warned that rising student debt has caused a decline in home ownership, which in turn suppresses local economies. And when servicers fail to ensure borrowers can find repayment plans they can afford, and they fall into default, it’s also taxpayers who take the hit, as we are all ultimately on the hook for federal student loans.

Mulvaney dismantling the office is a move that deliberately makes life harder for America's 44 million student loan borrowers. At a time when student borrowers need allies in government more than ever, Mick Mulvaney and the Trump Administration have left them out in the cold.

Alexis Goldstein is a Senior Policy Analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of 200 organizations fighting for a safer and fairer economy. She also co-hosts the podcast Humorless Queers.
We are starting to veer close to test board material here. I do not find this analysis to be completely neutral (nor would I expect that, to be fair). Mind you, I don't mind a good discussion of this issue here. It's relevant to the future of Penn State. But I do think that bringing in too many outside sources does start to move the discussion to the test board.

Also, I think we could just as well say that government debt will hold back our economy as much as this--if not more--over the long term.
 
We are starting to veer close to test board material here. I do not find this analysis to be completely neutral (nor would I expect that, to be fair). Mind you, I don't mind a good discussion of this issue here. It's relevant to the future of Penn State. But I do think that bringing in too many outside sources does start to move the discussion to the test board.

Also, I think we could just as well say that government debt will hold back our economy as much as this--if not more--over the long term.

It's one perspective - like the others here. It echos some of the sentiment shared by wbcincy when he started the thread. I would like to say I can't imagine why anyone would disapprove of a government office established to help students deal with bad actors, of which there are many, but I know better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nitt1300
It's one perspective - like the others here. It echos some of the sentiment shared by wbcincy when he started the thread. I would like to say I can't imagine why anyone would disapprove of a government office established to help students deal with bad actors, of which there are many, but I know better.
I'd prefer hearing that perspective from the posters here rather than from a think tank article--from either persuasion.

But--to give one example of why folks might disapprove--many of these kinds of government offices in the end exceed their mandates for action. So some folks are skeptical of them. The theory seems good--the practice often isn't. We saw this for example with the theory of getting more folks to buy homes back in the day--which led to the housing crisis when financially iffy folks got loans that they probably should not have gotten (and yes, I realize there were many other factors--but that one was a big one).
 
I'd prefer hearing that perspective from the posters here rather than from a think tank article--from either persuasion.

But--to give one example of why folks might disapprove--many of these kinds of government offices in the end exceed their mandates for action. So some folks are skeptical of them. The theory seems good--the practice often isn't. We saw this for example with the theory of getting more folks to buy homes back in the day--which led to the housing crisis when financially iffy folks got loans that they probably should not have gotten (and yes, I realize there were many other factors--but that one was a big one).

Which government office was responsible for oversight when the housing crisis happened? Isn't that one reason the CFPB was created - because there wasn't anyone keeping an eye on lenders/banks?
 
Which government office was responsible for oversight when the housing crisis happened? Isn't that one reason the CFPB was created - because there wasn't anyone keeping an eye on lenders/banks?

Take a look at what a current governor was pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do while he was HUD Secretary with the aim of increasing home ownership. Someone was watching certain lenders.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT