College Debt: Who's To Blame For Students' Suprime Loans?

bobbyw24

Banned
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
14,097
Placing the Blame as Students Are Buried in Debt
By RON LIEBER

Like many middle-class families, Cortney Munna and her mother began the college selection process with a grim determination. They would do whatever they could to get Cortney into the best possible college, and they maintained a blind faith that the investment would be worth it.

Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she’s been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments.

This is not a long-term solution, because the interest on the loans continues to pile up. So in an eerie echo of the mortgage crisis, tens of thousands of people like Ms. Munna are facing a reckoning. They and their families made borrowing decisions based more on emotion than reason, much as subprime borrowers assumed the value of their houses would always go up.

Meanwhile, universities like N.Y.U. enrolled students without asking many questions about whether they could afford a $50,000 annual tuition bill. Then the colleges introduced the students to lenders who underwrote big loans without any idea of what the students might earn someday — just like the mortgage lenders who didn’t ask borrowers to verify their incomes.

Ms. Munna does not want to walk away from her loans in the same way many mortgage holders are. It would be difficult in any event because federal bankruptcy law makes it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debts. But unless she manages to improve her income quickly, she doesn’t have a lot of good options for digging out.

It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can repel potential life partners. For starters, it’s a shared failure of parenting and loan underwriting.

But perhaps the biggest share lies with colleges and universities because they have the most knowledge of the financial aid process. And I would argue that they had an obligation to counsel students like Ms. Munna, who got in too far over their heads.

How many people are like her? According to the College Board’s Trends in Student Aid study, 10 percent of people who graduated in 2007-8 with student loans had borrowed $40,000 or more. The median debt for bachelor’s degree recipients who borrowed while attending private, nonprofit colleges was $22,380.

The Project on Student Debt, a research and advocacy organization in Oakland, Calif., used federal data to estimate that 206,000 people graduated from college (including many from for-profit universities) with more than $40,000 in student loan debt in that same period. That’s a ninefold increase over the number of people in 1996, using 2008 dollars.

The Family

No one forces borrowers to take out these loans, and Ms. Munna and her mother, Cathryn, have spent the years since her graduation trying to understand where they went wrong. Ms. Munna’s father died when she was 13, after a series of illnesses.

She started college at age 17 and borrowed as much money as she could under the federal loan program. To make up the difference between her grants and work study money and the total cost of attending, her mother co-signed two private loans with Sallie Mae totaling about $20,000.

When they applied for a third loan, however, Sallie Mae rejected the application, citing Cathryn’s credit history. She had returned to college herself to finish her bachelor’s degree and was also borrowing money. N.Y.U. suggested a federal Plus loan for parents, but that would have required immediate payments, something the mother couldn’t afford. So before Cortney’s junior year, N.Y.U. recommended that she apply for a private student loan on her own with Citibank.

Over the course of the next two years, starting when she was still a teenager, she borrowed about $40,000 from Citibank without thinking much about how she would pay it back. How could her mother have let her run up that debt, and why didn’t she try to make her daughter transfer to, say, the best school in the much cheaper state university system in New York? “All I could see was college, and a good college and how proud I was of her,” Cathryn said. “All we needed to do was get this education and get the good job. This is the thing that eats away at me, the naïveté on my part.”

But Cortney resists the idea that this is a tale of bad parenting. “To me, it would be an uncharitable reading,” she said. “My mother has tried her best, and I don’t blame her for anything in this.”

The Lender

continue

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/your-money/student-loans/29money.html?src=me&ref=business
 
As a student who has been paying for 10 years I can say that students bear FULL responsibility for the loan. The students use the services and agree to the terms of the loan. Either students bear responsibility for their actions or remove their rights to vote and act independently.

You cannot selectively be responsible for your actions. You either are or you are not. I intend to pay my loan off regardless of new legislation making it easier for me to ditch the payments. To me it's dishonourable to seek to push your debts onto others, when you inccurred the debts.
 
You cannot selectively be responsible for your actions. You either are or you are not. I intend to pay my loan off regardless of new legislation making it easier for me to ditch the payments. To me it's dishonourable to seek to push your debts onto others, when you inccurred the debts.

Anyone who john hancocked the paperwork for the loan

Yes, yes, but you guys are responsible Americans. What about the majority who can barely handle the responsibility of wiping their own asses?
 
Yes, yes, but you guys are responsible Americans. What about the majority who can barely handle the responsibility of wiping their own asses?

Well then if they cannot handle freedom then they should forgo the right to act independently. That means they do not vote themselves bennies from responsible Americans. You cannot have it both ways, you can't not be responsible for the consequences of your actions and be able to act in any way you want in a free enviornment.

If you make the results of your actions the responsibility of others then your actions become something these people should also be able to influence and contain. Otherwise it creates an unsusainable situation where negative consequences are born on you by a third party without any recourse to prevent further abuse.

Please keep in mind I only think this way when someone acting VOLUNTARILY tries to push their problems on others.
 
I really hate articles like this where they talk about a huge student debt burden and how the student then after graduating can't even pay it back. They don't even mention what the student majored in, was it art history or what?
 
I really hate articles like this where they talk about a huge student debt burden and how the student then after graduating can't even pay it back. They don't even mention what the student majored in, was it art history or what?

Ok, nevermind it's at the end of the article, here's the problem, what do you do with this degree: interdisciplinary degree in religious and women’s studies
 
There is way more to this than the article suggests...

First of all, I was a high school "self graduate". I had a lot of luck, and a lot of help from people who gave me a chance to prove myself, and I was able to work my way into a decent position in life.

I understand exactly how lucky I was and how difficult it would be to repeat my own success. I rode a train that has all but ended in the recent economic turmoil. That said, even without the turmoil and economic uncertainty, I actually hit a point where it has become difficult to go further without that stupid piece of paper. Its not for lack of skills or determination on my part.


So my advise to family and friends is to go for the college degree -- not because of the knowledge you may learn or the skills you may receive but because that paper, as stupid as it can be, does open some doors.


That said -- I advise those who can, to go to a top tier school. Yes, many community colleges offer better programs and they are far less expensive but the top tiers which cost 3x as much have gotten my friends that went to them 100k signing bonuses at top companies. Again, stupid, but that is how it works today.


The other aspect that the article fails to cover is that sheer lack of jobs for new graduates. I know people that graduated with good degrees (ie: not "english major") and they can't find work. Those that have are making slightly more than minimum wage and are barely able to pay back their loans.

You cannot live in NYC by yourself on your minimum wage.
You can't even live here on double the minimum wage.

Pile student loans on top of it and you have kids, KIDS, that will never get out of debt.


That is a real issue.

I don't agree with absolving the loans and letting them off scott free when so many others paid their way through college but this is an issue that will have long term consequences for us no matter how you slice it.
 
The question should be... WHO CAUSED STUDENT TUITIONS TO SKYROCKET?


Uncle Sam and Sallie Mae

Inbreeding always has bad results :eek:
 
What is NOT seen.

Hollywood hit the nail on the head...Many of you are missing "what is not seen".

What is not seen is...
...the government subsidization of higher education through government loans, grants, guarantees, and bailouts
...the state and local government funded/operated/controlled/etc. colleges...
...inflation which affects the industries with the most government involvement by a disproportionate amount...
...the k-12 public education systems uncanny ability to cause bewilderment and lack of direct in graduates...
...and of course, the artificial supply of credit supplied by the federal reserve system...

The government subsidizes and guarantees student loans so naturally you get more student loans. This distorts time preference of the student and leads to increased debt loads by shifting short term cost into the distant future at guaranteed artificial low rate.

Government grants and public colleges further distort the market by shifting costs from the student onto the taxpayer. This allows students to go to college to get a degree in something that there isn't much demand for, isn't profitable, or isn't necessary. At best this shifts cost onto the tax payer, at worst it shifts cost and creates graduates who can't find adequate employment.

These things combined with the public education system further distorts things with it's ability to cause bewilderment and lack of direction in graduates, often leading to misguided and sometimes costly choices by the students. These problems are further exacerbated by the federal reserve system and government guarantees for bankers, causing speculation in a loan market that takes advantage of high school graduates. The extremely excessive risk created by all this would normally be taken on by the one giving the loan, instead the risk is shouldered by the taxpayer and the students.

Higher education becomes more about getting as many students into as much debt as the system can support and less about educating students for a productive future.

Another interesting note, public college tuition cost has consistently increased by a higher percentage than private college tuition.

All of these government interventions (as usual...) create vast moral hazard, increased cost, inefficiency, increased tax-payer burdens, and countless harmful unintended consequences.
 
I really hate articles like this where they talk about a huge student debt burden and how the student then after graduating can't even pay it back. They don't even mention what the student majored in, was it art history or what?

I majored in history and if it weren't for going to law school, I probably would not have a job. Although nowadays that doesn't help much either. LOL
 
In the end it comes down to the student's fault. However, I am sympathetic to them because of the influences they are bombarded with growing up.

My highschool never even talked about the benefits of community colleges and portrayed them as a place where only stupid people go. Additionally, you are surrounded by other fellow peers who want that degree just as much. Counselors, teachers, parents, politicians are all telling you to go to college. How is any teenager, without a fully matured frontal lobe, suppose to be able to think on their own?

Instead of the paradigm of constantly bombarding kids to go to college, people should start asking kids whether they think college is applicable to their lifelong goals.
 
there's not a short, simple, single answer to blame on.

The media and our culture mislead students to go to school (without understanding the costs/benefits)

Banks lend to students without any regard to their ability to pay it back

Our government further encourages with subsidies (whether directly supporting the loans or handing out competing funds)

Schools in turn find less incentive to be efficient in spending money, if they see that it's easy to obtain (this is not always bad, as education is not meant for profit)

If you can't blame homeowners for taking attractive loans, you REALLY can't blame students for taking attractive loans.

Blaming interest rates isn't the answer either. Even if tuition costs + interest were completely outrageous, nobody's forcing the person to take the loan, the person made his own decision (whether misled or deceived) to loan money for an education he has no promise will pay him in the long term.

The same is true for payday loans, mortgages, credit cards, and many other forms of debt.

People who blame loan sharks, credit cards, or student lenders for putting people in debt are unwilling to admit, whether people are better off had they never been loaned the money to do their business to begin with.

If graduating college with $50K in debt is bad, then don't do it.
If getting a payday loan for 99.25% interest is bad, then don't get it.
If giving you a house for 5% interest, and then finding out the house is worth less than you owe is bad, then don't do it.
 
I majored in history and if it weren't for going to law school, I probably would not have a job. Although nowadays that doesn't help much either. LOL

It's much harder to talk about "long term benefits" or "non-monetary benefits" to learning and research when the economy is bad.

If all people cared about were survival, comfort and economic gratification, I don't think we'd have the advances in medicine, space exploration or even music, that we take for granted today. (socialists would probably argue that both luxury and scientific discovery should take a backseat when people are starving dead)

This is not to encourage people to spend time on things which don't benefit them, but it's a reminder that lots of things come later which we do not get to enjoy ourselves. That's life :(
 
+1 for this and hollywoods comment...

Hollywood hit the nail on the head...Many of you are missing "what is not seen".

What is not seen is...
...the government subsidization of higher education through government loans, grants, guarantees, and bailouts
...the state and local government funded/operated/controlled/etc. colleges...
...inflation which affects the industries with the most government involvement by a disproportionate amount...
...the k-12 public education systems uncanny ability to cause bewilderment and lack of direct in graduates...
...and of course, the artificial supply of credit supplied by the federal reserve system...

The government subsidizes and guarantees student loans so naturally you get more student loans. This distorts time preference of the student and leads to increased debt loads by shifting short term cost into the distant future at guaranteed artificial low rate.

Government grants and public colleges further distort the market by shifting costs from the student onto the taxpayer. This allows students to go to college to get a degree in something that there isn't much demand for, isn't profitable, or isn't necessary. At best this shifts cost onto the tax payer, at worst it shifts cost and creates graduates who can't find adequate employment.

These things combined with the public education system further distorts things with it's ability to cause bewilderment and lack of direction in graduates, often leading to misguided and sometimes costly choices by the students. These problems are further exacerbated by the federal reserve system and government guarantees for bankers, causing speculation in a loan market that takes advantage of high school graduates. The extremely excessive risk created by all this would normally be taken on by the one giving the loan, instead the risk is shouldered by the taxpayer and the students.

Higher education becomes more about getting as many students into as much debt as the system can support and less about educating students for a productive future.

Another interesting note, public college tuition cost has consistently increased by a higher percentage than private college tuition.

All of these government interventions (as usual...) create vast moral hazard, increased cost, inefficiency, increased tax-payer burdens, and countless harmful unintended consequences.
 
Yes, yes, but you guys are responsible Americans. What about the majority who can barely handle the responsibility of wiping their own asses?

they still have full responsibility. If someone who can barely handle "wiping their own ass" shoots and kills someone, they still have full responsibility for their actions--if they signed the loan, they need to abide, in full, by its terms, no matter how draconian.

If they don't read the loan (or take the time to understand it or find someone that does) then that is their own fault--a contract is a contract.
 
The situation is out of control and will get worse if something isn't done, whoever you blame for it. What the hell will happen to the economy one day if most people are going to college (thereby lessening the value of all degrees) and wracking up enormous amounts of debt that they owe payments on for years, possibly decades?

The big blow hardly anyone talks about came in the early 2000s when the Republican Congress (many GOP Congressman were getting big contributions from Sallie Mae at the time) made student debt impervious to being discharged in bankruptcy. I'm not saying Democrats would do any better--they just want more Federal aid, and the origin of high tuition is the fact that too many easy loans are floating around. This change made things much worse.

Now, the whole bankruptcy system is backwards and regressive. A 50 year old who has a mid-life crisis and buys a hot rod off a credit card can push the bankruptcy button and start over with some pain. But a 20 year old with mediocre financial sense, who has been told to pursue their passions, however impractical, and that college is the promised land, can't discharge their loan debt.

Removing the student loan industry's bankruptcy protection would do a lot toward easing the mess. It would actually force the loan companies to take a hit for giving out loans like candy for useless degrees, or too much money that can obviously never be paid back. Under the current system, students take the most punishment, and any free market incentive to make better loans or less of them (which might force schools to drop tuition if there was less easy money) is absent.

Yet another instance where corporatism propped up by government is ruining this country. Education-Industrial Complex, anyone?
 
they still have full responsibility. If someone who can barely handle "wiping their own ass" shoots and kills someone, they still have full responsibility for their actions--if they signed the loan, they need to abide, in full, by its terms, no matter how draconian.

If they don't read the loan (or take the time to understand it or find someone that does) then that is their own fault--a contract is a contract.
You're missing the point.

By why are tuitions so fucking expensive ? ??
This is the right question to be asking.

The situation is out of control and will get worse if something isn't done, whoever you blame for it. What the hell will happen to the economy one day if most people are going to college (thereby lessening the value of all degrees) and wracking up enormous amounts of debt that they owe payments on for years, possibly decades?

The big blow hardly anyone talks about came in the early 2000s when the Republican Congress (many GOP Congressman were getting big contributions from Sallie Mae at the time) made student debt impervious to being discharged in bankruptcy. I'm not saying Democrats would do any better--they just want more Federal aid, and the origin of high tuition is the fact that too many easy loans are floating around. This change made things much worse.

Now, the whole bankruptcy system is backwards and regressive. A 50 year old who has a mid-life crisis and buys a hot rod off a credit card can push the bankruptcy button and start over with some pain. But a 20 year old with mediocre financial sense, who has been told to pursue their passions, however impractical, and that college is the promised land, can't discharge their loan debt.

Removing the student loan industry's bankruptcy protection would do a lot toward easing the mess. It would actually force the loan companies to take a hit for giving out loans like candy for useless degrees, or too much money that can obviously never be paid back. Under the current system, students take the most punishment, and any free market incentive to make better loans or less of them (which might force schools to drop tuition if there was less easy money) is absent.

Yet another instance where corporatism propped up by government is ruining this country. Education-Industrial Complex, anyone?
THIS, and what I posted earlier are the answer to that question.
 
By why are tuitions so fucking expensive ? ??

Here are my thoughts on that. In a capitalist system, goods that are desired the most by consumers are the ones that are chosen to be purchased. What makes a particular set of goods desirable over others can be a number of things - high quality, low price, low supply, etc. But lets just focus on the price aspect. Suppose that suddenly, for whatever reason, no one cared about the price of goods anymore. Say they valued quality in a product instead. The result would be that the downward pressure on price would disappear, and companies could price gouge consumers without losing any business, so long as the product they were offering was high in quality. Why can they do this? Because consumers no longer care about price. If they no longer care about price, companies will find no reason to minimize it.

Now, connect the dots between that theory and what has actually happened in real markets. One is the college textbook market. Here, professors choose which books students must buy, with less regard to the cost of those books and more to the content since the professors themselves are not paying for the books. The result is predictable - prices on college textbooks have greatly outpaced the rate of inflation.

Now compare this to what has happened in healthcare because of insurance. Unlike in most any other industry, where the first thing you would ask upon walking through the door is "What is the price of X?", in healthcare it has become customary to simply flash the insurance card and pay a flat copay fee. Because insurance pools are being used to pay for every single healthcare purchase no matter how small, price has become far less of an issue to consumers of healthcare industry services. The result again is predictable, because downward price pressure has been reduced: prices rise far in excess of inflation, because consumers are no longer as concerned with the price of the services they are purchasing. (Note, if this is true, then the government healthcare mandate will only make matters much worse since it eliminated the 1 in 10 Americans who previously had no insurance and as such were forced to be concerned about price)

As for tuition increases, I haven't given much thought to that, but my guess is it's related to the same economic principles as above. It's possible that students, by having others pay for their education (parents, government if need based), have reduced the price pressure on tuition, but my guess is this only partially explains it. Perhaps students loans manage to cause a disconnect between price and services by delaying repayment to some far off point in the future. In any case, my guess is it boils down to this again: students are choosing a college based on other reasons they deem far more important than cost. Without as strong of a downward price pressure on tuition costs as in other areas of the economy, they are outpacing inflation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top