U.S. household debt tops $14 TRILLION and reaches new record

Good parenting is becoming harder to come by. The same things adults mock kids for doing the adults are doing and care much less about their kids behavior.

 

That won't stop Trump's blind loyalists from blaming him.

 

I don't believe you are addressing a real issue. Our universities aren't turning out "too many" of any particular degree.

My comment about business is that corporations that are developing solutions for a particular business need to have people who have serious understanding of that business. They need to have people who understand how humans work. They need to have people who know marketing, management, tax law, salesmanship, and the many related fields. These are all well compensated fields that are not STEM.

AND, that's a good thing, because engineering is NOT for everyone. And, trying to spend a lifetime doing something you don't like is not good for anyone involved.

 

A person who incurs tens of thousands of dollars of debt with NOTHING to show for it is an idiot! Kids ARE NOT given the full loan amount on day 1 of their college education. Why would a kid continue borrowing money to continue their education, for 3-4 or more years, if it wasn't leading to a better place? For those who acquire tuition debt for degrees and/or education that will not offer a reasonable income to pay back their loans...they're idiots. For those who keep borrowing money, keep going to school, down a path with questionable future employment/income...they're idiots. NO ONE holds a gun to their heads and demands they acquire $30K in debt with NOTHING to show for it.

A college degree IS NOT required in order to pay back tuition loans!

Very poor kids for decades have figured out how to obtain a college education. Maybe their path is different than someone with wealth but so what?

Student loans, depending on the amounts, etc., have 10-25 years for payback. For anyone who obtains a college-level job $3-$4K payments per year is no big deal.

 

I agree with almost all of what you're saying here.

Freshman tuition and fees at University of Washington are $11,500 for WA residents (more than 3X that for others). From there, one has to pay for food and housing, which in most places is required to be on-campus. Plus, travel, etc. The total for 2019 was about $28K for freshman year.

The issue I've been talking about is the decision kids with no parents or low income parents have to make here.

For those kids, placing a bet of that size is serious business. There is NO DOUBT that it causes kids without parental backing to choose against this debt even if they are qualified and interested in a 4 year degree.

I'm saying that the bill IS a deterrence to many solid highschool students who were unlucky concerning the wealth of their parents.

And, paying $3k or $4k per year isn't going to defray a ~$25K loan with interest in less than 10 years. And, that's assuming they leave school after just one year. Nor is that going to be a small percent of the earnings of a high school kid with no college education.

Again, I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm saying it is a deterrent specifically targeting those kids with low income parents.

 

1) No one has to live on campus - that's ridiculously excessive. Commute to your local university like the rest of the world does, or don't go to university.

2) Once again, the bet is placed against the COURSE. The risks lie in the likelihood that the course will provide the income needed to recoup the loss. It has nothing to do with the parent's wealth. The poorest kid in America is taking no risk at all in choosing medicine, for example. She/he will have those loans knocked out within 10 years easily.

3) And again .. no. If a kid is basing their decision on their parents' financial status, it tells you the kid has no confidence in their preferred course. Clearly, that's ridiculous.

 

1) No, that is absolutely the real issue. Far too many kids are borrowing on courses that won't pay.

2) Doesn't matter. The future is STEM/Tech/Trade ... adapt or perish. There will always be plenty of qualified grads willing and able to learn a little business savvy/marketing etc. And no one really needs to know tax law but your accountant.

3) Of course engineering isn't for everyone. But there are hundreds of tech skills to choose from, so no one ever need do something they hate. As for for spending a lifetime doing something you don't love .. welcome to the real world. Only the rich get to be picky about that stuff. The rest of us have mortgages to pay and families to raise.

 

Once again you are ignoring the fact that 40% do not earn a 4 year degree even after 6 years.

It's ridiculous for a high school kid to think that he or she absolutely WILL get a degree. How the heck could that be known?

In many 4 year schools, living on campus for at least the first year is a requirement.

 

1) Again, CHOICES! You're still having great difficulty accepting that some people are going to choose failure. THEY chose to place the bet, then chose to renig on the agreement. Of course I'm 'ignoring' it. It's like trying to have a conversation about Rolls Royce owners, and someone keeps saying "but what about people who can only afford a Hyundai?"

2) It's 'ridiculous' to enter an agreement and make a commitment? I sure hope you're joking. If not, no wonder kids are dropping out - when the adults around them clearly have no confidence in them - no doubt predicated on the self-knowledge those adults have of their failure to instill the importance of agreements and commitments.

3) There's no way a university can dictate where you live - it's none of their ****ing business. At least that could not happen here - it would be illegal. More imporantly .. what on earth are poor kids doing agreeing to living on campus, thus adding further loan burden? And why in hell are their poor parents ALLOWING them to agree to something like that? Poor families should be sticking to a university within commuting range, and then seeking public transport subsidies. Jesus .. are people in America really this stupid? I can't believe any of this needs saying

 

OK. In America, you sign a contract with the university and pay your money. If the contract says you have to live on campus, and you don't want to, then you may decide not to go to school there.

You are still missing the central point that the cost of education IS a risk - it is NOT a certainty.

That risk weighs more heavily on high school kids who don't have parents with money to spare.

 

Didn't the student loan crisis start as a reaction to Affirmative Action (AA)? College had been relatively cheap but entrance was denied to blacks. In order to open up the enrollment the AA program was pushed as a solution. Then some white students started to whine that they were deprived of seats in their favorite universities because of the AA students. Shortly after that college tuition took off like a rocket. The result was that it reduced the influx of black students and made college more expensive for white students. But the foreign students kept coming because their expenses were paid by foreign governments. So now poor whites and blacks can't get into certain universities because they can't afford it.

 

1) So don't go to those universities, if you doubt your ability to handle the unnecessary extra cost. Go to your local school, by bus.

2) And that risk is massively increased if you borrow against a useless degree. It's massively decreased if you borrow against a useful degree. That's the only point.

3) The risk is directly proportional to the likelihood of the degree equipping you to repay it - nothing else outside of your own motivation and commitment can impact it.

 

When were blacks 'denied entrance'? Are you talking about back in the 1960's - ish?

 

It's really simply a cut to public funds to universities.

When states get hit like they were in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, they have to cut somewhere. And, the top cutable expenditures tend to be education and transportation.

State funding never recovered to previous levels after either one of those recessions. It would have required states to pass bills to increase spending on higher education back to previous levels. States just didn't do that.

One result is a LOT of pressure on tuition. Schools either had to cut the quality of their education or raise tuition. They've done both, of coruse.

AA has nothing to do with it as it doesn't change the number of students. And, all students have to qualify for admittance by the same criteria. There is a pool of those who qualify. Schools want to put together what they see as the best class - which is NOT simply those who score highest on some test. In fact, there is a growing awareness that the national school entrance exams everyone takes are NOT good measures of likely success. And, the school cares about distribution across various factors. They are NOT interested in taking all those from their own immediate vicitnity, etc., because education is better when there is variety. Schools want students from China, Europe, Africa, India, etc. They want kids who grew up with nothing as well as others. Etc. You can find religiously oriented pubic universities that don't see it that way - BYU, for example.

Federal grants and loans to indiviual students (including to veterans) have increased. In general, the federal level focuses on help to students, not to universities.

The federal government has cut research funding significantly. That isn't totally separate from education, because research includes student participation (often paid) and attracts individuals who are significant in their field. So, it is a cut to the finances and quality of the education the school can offer.

 

Money for average people can always be a deterrent. Everyone must make money decisions early on from how they can live, to owning transportation, to finding shelter, being able to have a little fun, and paying for higher education. All kids understand this because life revolves around money. So what's the solution? Free education? Forgive student loans? Forgive car loans? Forgive house loans? Forgive all household debt? IMO many people today abuse credit purchases from credit cards to new/newer cars to clothing and entertainment, etc. and student loans fall into this same category...if they're going to borrow the money they must pay back the money! This is a life-lesson that lasts until the day we die.

I would propose society subsidizing college tuition for anyone who will serve 2-3 years in the military or other form of public service. In public service work perhaps it can be designed to allow school work in parallel with service work?

 

I like the public service idea - even without attaching it to education.

Also, education needs to be expanded beyond academic degree programs such as in today's universities. Our whole economy is advancing rapidly in terms of the skills needdd by those entering the work force or switching jobs as workers see their current careers reaching a possible dead end due to change.

 

So what is the definition of public education? Is it in place in order to learn a variety of all things A-Z? Is it in place to prepare for careers? Is it some form of college prep? Last time I looked, if you go to the Dept. of Ed website, no where will you find a mission statement?? Part of our problem with education is if we don't know our goals then it's difficult to design an effective education system. If one goal is to provide a career path for non-academic jobs, then obviously this should be available a minimum of 2 years in high school. I always say if we don't know where we want to go it is unlikely we can get there...

 

Private schools that do have to have mission statements point out that the goal is to produce life long learners. That is, one who has the tools and know how to constantly learn throughout life.

In post highschool education the highest degree is a PhD. The qualification there is that the experts at the university deem the individual as capable of independently addressing the major questions within the subject - moving human understanding forward. In fields of science, that means producing original research answering serious questions that have not previously been answered, with the work passing independent review resulting in publication by a professional journal.

 

I have two main concerns with this idea that high school should be able to teach specific job skills for an occupation.

The first is that no high school kid really has a clue about what the job market is going to be like or what their opportunities actually are. Making career decisions after sophomore year of high school is ludicrous.

I have a neice who at that time was totally uninerested in college. She just wanted out of school, which seems irrelevant. Now as a graduating senior the president of a known university called her to offer her a 4 year full ride schollarship that includes leadership opportunities, time learning overseas, etc., in areas she's excited about. Thank GOD she didn't get enticed by some trade school option.

Next, there isn't time. There is far too much to learn in high school to stop learning that in favor of embarking on job training. One can claim we aren't doing a good enough job of that, but that doesn't make TOTAL failure an option.

 

The problem is that no school can produce that. Learning is a function of focus, commitment, and self-discipline .. and those are character traits. Character traits are the product of the home.

Learning isn't a product of curiosity. Lots of us are curious about lots of things, but few of us LEARN them.

 

Of course - that's where parents come in. No child should be making these sorts of decisions alone.

 

Isn't this just another of many ways the wealthy capitalists in power in Washington, keep the working masses in check? Don't they encourage massive spending & indebtedness to those who can't afford it, to keep them preoccupied with shopping & personal debt, & a less frequent adversary opposing the self-serving goals of those empowered?

 

I can't disagree with you XploreR, and if the "working masses" are so damned STOOPID that they are content to fall into the bottomless pit of indebtedness for their entire lives, who's to blame for that...?! We are a country where, in essence, you have the constitutional RIGHT to do whatever you want as long as it is legal....

. Picks his nose, and then EATS it... and, it's his right to do it!

 

~ Sadly when people have work and steady income they tend to spend more than they should. My generation was taught the opposite. Everyone is encouraged by marketing to "buy & enjoy! " - but fortunately most have common sense. I hope the majority of folks do not go overboard !

 

But what is the definition and mission statement of public education K-12?

I think the government and others are fearful of being pinned down with goals and mission statements. They can't even state they want 80% or 90% or 100% graduation? My guess is 30% fail or drop out and another 20% learn nothing...this is a 50% failure rate of our education system. How many of these 50% will obtain college studies? We talk about high tuitions, which are an issue, but the root issue is how we educate our kids in K-12 and whether or not we are creating 'life-long learners'?