Those of you with Student Loans

[suchende]

You know, I don't really think it's right that Federal gov't jobs qualify for IBR/forgiveness. They have high security, great benefits and, by some measures, the pay is better than private sector work. This Economist article addressed the costs of public sector jobs: http://www.economist.com/node/17849199

Most of my law school classmates view gov't job as lower-key mommy jobs. I am not sure this is what we want to subsidize.

 

[TubTub]

At least you get the interset tax write-off!

 

[megumic]

You know, I don't really think it's right that Federal gov't jobs qualify for IBR/forgiveness. They have high security, great benefits and, by some measures, the pay is better than private sector work. This Economist article addressed the costs of public sector jobs: http://www.economist.com/node/17849199

Most of my law school classmates view gov't job as lower-key mommy jobs. I am not sure this is what we want to subsidize.

It's subsidized for the exact reason you point out -- it's not attractive to the top-of-the-class-cream-of-the-crop graduates who can get into top firms earning 6 figures -- but rather it's attractive to the lower-key mommy jobs. It's an extra incentive. Without an incentive, nobody would ever spring for the govt jobs. It's for those who want job stability and a cushion to help with the loans, whereas those at the firm earn far more (thus can afford their loans), but are in a riskier spot to lose their job.

 

[megumic]

At least you get the interset tax write-off!

Ha, that's assuming you are able to pay the interest on your loans!

 

[basil]

I don't know anything about the law profession, which seems to be what most of this thread is about.

I'm in medicine, and most people I know (except those whose parents are really wealthy) have six figures of student loans - including me and my husband. For the most part, unless you are really restrictive about where you want to live, jobs are there in medicine and pay enough to pay off your loans.

Again, I don't know about law, but when I graduated med school in 2006 I consolidated my loans at ~3%. My husband (graduated in 2005) fixes his even lower at like ~2.5% or something. At that rate, it makes no sense for us to pay it off any faster than the 30 year maximum...cause putting your money almost anywhere other than your checking account can meet or exceed that. Plus then you get the tax deduction for interest. We were lucky - interest rates are much higher now.

However, with the huge Medicare cuts and such on the horizon, who knows what the next generation of doctors will face. Medical schools are certainly not cutting tuition, and unless your parents are really wealthy no one is going to pay for $50+k a year of grad school. Physician payments are only going down. My husband said he read an article the other day where after adding up all the hours in school, residency with little pay, and student loans, doctors were paid a little bit less per hour than teachers. No offense against teachers, but that's pretty sad.

 

[iugurl]

I don't get the house comparison at all either. We are talking about someone who has chosen the only means possible (as a teenager most likely) to educate themselves in order to become a productive member of society. Then we're comparing this someone with a "responsible" adult who felt they just had to have a 4000 sq ft home they couldn't afford and didn't need?

1. I don't think the only way to become a "productive member of society" is to attend college. That statement is offensive to me. Perhaps it was not intentional.
2. A lot of people who have foreclosed homes, that I know personally, were responsible. I know 2 income families, who bought a house with which the mortgage and all bills could be paid with only one income. They had savings. They both lost their jobs, and either A. unemployment will not pay for said bills B. The only jobs they have found were jobs that would NOT cover mortgage, car payments, utilities etc. After a few months of burning through savings, they are underwater.

I think a lot of people were not responsible about buying a house. I think some were. Unexpected things happen. I think it is absurd to assume everyone was NOT responsible, could NOT afford the house, and bought some extravagant 4000 sq foot house.

Do you really feel as though any amount of student loans are ok? Do you think it is appropriate or wise for someone going into a field that makes $35,000 to go to a school that costs $50,000+ a year? Do you think that in this case they "deserve" to have the slate wiped clean? I guess I don't feel bad for those people who were completely irresponsible and irrational about potential salary vs. student loans. In other cases, I may feel differently.

Can anyone explain to me the requirements of receiving loan forgiveness?

 

[suchende]

You know, I don't really think it's right that Federal gov't jobs qualify for IBR/forgiveness. They have high security, great benefits and, by some measures, the pay is better than private sector work. This Economist article addressed the costs of public sector jobs: http://www.economist.com/node/17849199

Most of my law school classmates view gov't job as lower-key mommy jobs. I am not sure this is what we want to subsidize.

It's subsidized for the exact reason you point out -- it's not attractive to the top-of-the-class-cream-of-the-crop graduates who can get into top firms earning 6 figures -- but rather it's attractive to the lower-key mommy jobs. It's an extra incentive. Without an incentive, nobody would ever spring for the govt jobs. It's for those who want job stability and a cushion to help with the loans, whereas those at the firm earn far more (thus can afford their loans), but are in a riskier spot to lose their job.

RIght, I guess I just question the policy behind applying this new program to Federal jobs, which were already pretty desirable.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

I don't get the house comparison at all either. We are talking about someone who has chosen the only means possible (as a teenager most likely) to educate themselves in order to become a productive member of society. Then we're comparing this someone with a "responsible" adult who felt they just had to have a 4000 sq ft home they couldn't afford and didn't need?

1. I don't think the only way to become a "productive member of society" is to attend college. That statement is offensive to me. Perhaps it was not intentional.
2. A lot of people who have foreclosed homes, that I know personally, were responsible. I know 2 income families, who bought a house with which the mortgage and all bills could be paid with only one income. They had savings. They both lost their jobs, and either A. unemployment will not pay for said bills B. The only jobs they have found were jobs that would NOT cover mortgage, car payments, utilities etc. After a few months of burning through savings, they are underwater.

I think a lot of people were not responsible about buying a house. I think some were. Unexpected things happen. I think it is absurd to assume everyone was NOT responsible, could NOT afford the house, and bought some extravagant 4000 sq foot house.

Do you really feel as though any amount of student loans are ok? Do you think it is appropriate or wise for someone going into a field that makes $35,000 to go to a school that costs $50,000+ a year? Do you think that in this case they "deserve" to have the slate wiped clean? I guess I don't feel bad for those people who were completely irresponsible and irrational about potential salary vs. student loans. In other cases, I may feel differently.

Can anyone explain to me the requirements of receiving loan forgiveness?

Umm, WHERE did I say that the only way to become a productive member of society was to attend college? The only assumption I'm making here is that most people who do would like to become a productive member of society. Big difference.

I'm sorry if my statements are offensive to you, but in all honesty, I find much of what you have said in this thread to be the same.

And sure, some people with foreclosed homes were responsible, but many were not. If you want to have an elitist attitude toward debt, perhaps we should be saying they should have bought their homes in cash, or had enough in savings to cover the mortgage if things went sour. Not to sound insensitive but whatever the reason, good or bad, these people walked away from their home. They're not working toward a forgiveness of the mortgage they defaulted on. The slate has been wiped clean (unless they're in a state where deficiencies can be pursued).

And no, it's not wise to recklessly accumulate student loan debt, but what are you trying to say here? Are the only people who "deserve" to go to a $50,000 top 20 school those who were either born into enough privilege to fully finance it or those who will become doctors and CEOs? Guess what? If this were the case, there would be many sparsely populated college campuses. What is the issue with letting someone who academically, but not financially, "deserved" to attend an expensive college work against their debt? As noted above, many of these forgiveness jobs may be working for the government at a lower wage. Isn't that paying back the debt in and of itself?

 

[megumic]

I don't get the house comparison at all either. We are talking about someone who has chosen the only means possible (as a teenager most likely) to educate themselves in order to become a productive member of society. Then we're comparing this someone with a "responsible" adult who felt they just had to have a 4000 sq ft home they couldn't afford and didn't need?

Can anyone explain to me the requirements of receiving loan forgiveness?

I can only speak to the loan forgiveness program I am familiar with. First of all, only federal loans qualify. If you work in a qualifying position for 10 years (do not have to be consecutive years, you just have to have 10 total) and make 120 qualifying loan payments, the remainder of your loan is forgiven. Jobs ranging from public interest work, not-for-profit organizations, teaching, etc. qualify for the program. That's the most simplistic explanation, and there are certainly more loopholes to it, but that's the general idea.

 

[iugurl]

I'm sorry if my statements are offensive to you, but in all honesty, I find much of what you have said in this thread to be the same.

If you want to have an elitist attitude toward debt, perhaps we should be saying they should have bought their homes in cash, or had enough in savings to cover the mortgage if things went sour.

Are the only people who "deserve" to go to a $50,000 top 20 school those who were either born into enough privilege to fully finance it or those who will become doctors and CEOs? Guess what? If this were the case, there would be many sparsely populated college campuses. What is the issue with letting someone who academically, but not financially, "deserved" to attend an expensive college work against their debt? As noted above, many of these forgiveness jobs may be working for the government at a lower wage. Isn't that paying back the debt in and of itself?

I don't have an elitist attitude towards debt. Where did I say that no one should take out student loans? Where did I say it must be paid in cash? It is absurd that you are insinuating I said or implied as much. I don't care if someone wants to go to Harvard for 4 years for one degree or 20 years for 5 degrees with student loans.

If you would read my earlier posts, I did not say that I am necessarily against all types of loan forgiveness. I have no idea how the type you describe works - the govt job with less pay but loan forgiveness. Repeat: I am not talking about such forgiveness. I am talking about the random musings of people IRL and online who say they wish if one person had x amount of debt vs. x amount of salary, it should automatically get wiped clean. Or some other version of loan forgiveness.

I don't think that only Doctors and CEOS (which BTW, how would you even know if you were going to be a CEO?) or people from wealthy families "deserve" to go expensive schools. I think people who do not have scholarships, financial aid, or help from parents need to think about what they are getting into. That is all. If one thinks it is "worth" going to an expensive school, even though their salary will make it tough to pay of loans, then sure go for it. It will take sacrifices though. You may not be able to pay fancy cars or rent fancy apartments, because you have such debt. If one does not get such a job that qualifies, do you think their debt should be reduced or fully forgotten?

I am sorry if you are offended my opinion differs from yours. If certain statements have been offensive, please let me know.

 

[iugurl]

I can only speak to the loan forgiveness program I am familiar with. First of all, only federal loans qualify. If you work in a qualifying position for 10 years (do not have to be consecutive years, you just have to have 10 total) and make 120 qualifying loan payments, the remainder of your loan is forgiven. Jobs ranging from public interest work, not-for-profit organizations, teaching, etc. qualify for the program. That's the most simplistic explanation, and there are certainly more loopholes to it, but that's the general idea.

Hmm how long are normal student loans? 30 years?

If I am understanding this correctly, I am not against this type loan forgiveness.

 

[swimmer]

If you would read my earlier posts, I did not say that I am necessarily against all types of loan forgiveness. I have no idea how the type you describe works - the govt job with less pay but loan forgiveness. Repeat: I am not talking about such forgiveness. I am talking about the random musings of people IRL and online who say they wish if one person had x amount of debt vs. x amount of salary, it should automatically get wiped clean. Or some other version of loan forgiveness.

I don't think that only Doctors and CEOS (which BTW, how would you even know if you were going to be a CEO?) or people from wealthy families "deserve" to go expensive schools. I think people who do not have scholarships, financial aid, or help from parents need to think about what they are getting into. That is all. If one thinks it is "worth" going to an expensive school, even though their salary will make it tough to pay of loans, then sure go for it. It will take sacrifices though. You may not be able to pay fancy cars or rent fancy apartments, because you have such debt. If one does not get such a job that qualifies, do you think their debt should be reduced or fully forgotten?

[/quote]


I'm pretty sure that "the random musings" type of loan forgiveness simply doesn't exist. I'm only familiar with the teaching math or science in poverty stricken rural areas or inner city districts where few people want to teach for a variety of reasons. Instead of hazard pay they get a few k loan forgiveness a year. A bit of googling shows that there are not a wide variety of other paths for federal loan forgiveness.

 

[iugurl]

I am talking about the random musings of people IRL and online who say they wish if one person had x amount of debt vs. x amount of salary, it should automatically get wiped clean. O

I didn't say it exists. Just that certain people think that loan forgiveness should be available to practically anyone. I am not referring to anyone specific in this thread, but I have heard it IRL and on other forums.

 

[suchende]

The posts in this thread only strengthen my fear that IBR, as it is, won't last as a federal program. I think as people become more aware of what it is costing the taxpayer, there will be a public opinion backlash and they'll restrict who can get it and how.

 

[megumic]

I can only speak to the loan forgiveness program I am familiar with. First of all, only federal loans qualify. If you work in a qualifying position for 10 years (do not have to be consecutive years, you just have to have 10 total) and make 120 qualifying loan payments, the remainder of your loan is forgiven. Jobs ranging from public interest work, not-for-profit organizations, teaching, etc. qualify for the program. That's the most simplistic explanation, and there are certainly more loopholes to it, but that's the general idea.

Hmm how long are normal student loans? 30 years?

If I am understanding this correctly, I am not against this type loan forgiveness.

Yes, 30 years. However, as Suchende mentions in other posts, it's usually Income-Based-Repayment (IBR) for those 10 years. For example, if I make $40k at my public interest job, my loan payment for my 6 figure loan will be commensurate with my income. Thus, those who earn less, have smaller payments and accordingly have a greater amount of dollars forgiven after 10 years -- the less you earn the less you pay. So you're living meager, but are forgiven a substantial amount. Also, your spouse's income is calculated in as well and there is a phase out. If I wanted to take the loan forgiveness route, DH and I would have to file separately b/c his salary pushes us over the edge of what qualifies.

 

[megumic]

The posts in this thread only strengthen my fear that IBR, as it is, won't last as a federal program. I think as people become more aware of what it is costing the taxpayer, there will be a public opinion backlash and they'll restrict who can get it and how.

What is it costing the taxpayers? I thought it just prolongs your loans and the interest keeps building...so you end up with more in the end than if you paid the full monthly amounts?

Here's one bit I found about what it initially costs the taxpayer, but then it is tacked onto the loan...

"What about interest? In some situations, your reduced payment under IBR may not cover the interest on your loans. If so, the government will pay that interest on your Subsidized Stafford Loans for your first three years in IBR. After three years and for other loan types, the interest will be added to the total amount you owe. While your debt may grow if your affordable payments are low enough, anything you still owe after 25 years of qualifying payments will be forgiven."

Source: http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

 

[suchende]

You only have to pay that off, though, if it isn't forgiven.

I don't know what the program as a whole is going to end up costing taxpayers, but I can imagine how some bad press, "Man racks up $300k in student loans for online degrees and certificates, taxpayers foot the bill after he spends 10 years sorting mail at the post office! Meanwhile, University of Phoenix posts record earnings!" could hurt the program generally and inspire some legislative alterations to the program.

 

[Octavia]

I can only speak to the loan forgiveness program I am familiar with. First of all, only federal loans qualify. If you work in a qualifying position for 10 years (do not have to be consecutive years, you just have to have 10 total) and make 120 qualifying loan payments, the remainder of your loan is forgiven. Jobs ranging from public interest work, not-for-profit organizations, teaching, etc. qualify for the program. That's the most simplistic explanation, and there are certainly more loopholes to it, but that's the general idea.

Hmm how long are normal student loans? 30 years?

If I am understanding this correctly, I am not against this type loan forgiveness.

Yes, 30 years. However, as Suchende mentions in other posts, it's usually Income-Based-Repayment (IBR) for those 10 years. For example, if I make $40k at my public interest job, my loan payment for my 6 figure loan will be commensurate with my income. Thus, those who earn less, have smaller payments and accordingly have a greater amount of dollars forgiven after 10 years -- the less you earn the less you pay. So you're living meager, but are forgiven a substantial amount. Also, your spouse's income is calculated in as well and there is a phase out. If I wanted to take the loan forgiveness route, DH and I would have to file separately b/c his salary pushes us over the edge of what qualifies.

Keep in mind that the student loan interest deduction isn't available for people who file Married Filing Separately (I looked into it because DH's income phases me out), so even if you are eligible for IBR if you file separately, it's still a big deduction to forgo.

 

[katamari]

Tuition is so rapidly on the rise because states have been cutting budget allotments that used to go to schools. It used to be that all education was subsidized and that public universities and community colleges were heavily subsidized by state governments. That money has been largely cut, which is one major reason we have seen tuition spikes, particularly in public education. Instead of subsidizing everyone's education, now we subsidize the few through loan forgiveness (and it is really very few who ever qualify) and are moving toward subsidizing none. I would much rather return to the time when we funded education in a way that made it attainable to more people than bicker over who is worthy or unworthy of affordable education. Everyone is. We shouldn't need loan forgiveness because no one should have to rely on loans to get a college education, especially one to the order of a mortgage or equivalent.


On review, I will add, to address megumic's earlier question, tuition increase has something to do with supply/demand, but not because there are more institutions than students. Applications are growing heavily, across sectors, so filling classes is not an issue. A second, though still important, issue is the facilities "arms race" most universities are participating in to recruit students. This irresponsible race to build state of the art unions, fitness facilities, dorms, etc. cost so much money and universities prefer to staff class with underpaid graduate students in contingent adjuncts to fund gyms for 18-22-year-olds on par with what professional athletes use. The central issue is the state budget cuts, but building ridiculous facilities in the era of slashed budgets is beyond foolish.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

Tuition is so rapidly on the rise because states have been cutting budget allotments that used to go to schools. It used to be that all education was subsidized and that public universities and community colleges were heavily subsidized by state governments. That money has been largely cut, which is one major reason we have seen tuition spikes, particularly in public education. Instead of subsidizing everyone's education, now we subsidize the few through loan forgiveness (and it is really very few who ever qualify) and are moving toward subsidizing none. I would much rather return to the time when we funded education in a way that made it attainable to more people than bicker over who is worthy or unworthy of affordable education. Everyone is. We shouldn't need loan forgiveness because no one should have to rely on loans to get a college education, especially one to the order of a mortgage or equivalent.
On review, I will add, to address megumic's earlier question, tuition increase has something to do with supply/demand, but not because there are more institutions than students. Applications are growing heavily, across sectors, so filling classes is not an issue. A second, though still important, issue is the facilities "arms race" most universities are participating in to recruit students. This irresponsible race to build state of the art unions, fitness facilities, dorms, etc. cost so much money and universities prefer to staff class with underpaid graduate students in contingent adjuncts to fund gyms for 18-22-year-olds on par with what professional athletes use. The central issue is the state budget cuts, but building ridiculous facilities in the era of slashed budgets is beyond foolish.

Thank you for your insight, Katamari. I think the bolded part above states (albeit a bit more diplomatically) what my main point was. It's funny. I've taught as a grad student, tenure-track faculty, and now, adjunct. (I'm in the same position as Circe, I believe, from Cuso's thread that I guess was deleted?) I honestly never noticed the facilities "arms race", but this is true!!! I guess it brings the school revenues in sports ticket sales, attracts applicants, and justifies sky-high mandatory activities fees and dining plans. You're right that they're not blowing the budget on the graduate teaching assistants! At both my tier 1 and top 20 grad school I could not afford to live alone in an apartment on my pay and cover the bills. I took some loans in the beginning, but decided to move home for the second half of grad school. (to the ridicule of many) Aside from the financial issue and the fact that I feel many grad students make fantastic teachers (fresh enthusiasm, close to current research, etc.), I'd bet many paying parents aren't thrilled to see so many of their son's/daughter's classes staffed this way. Times have changed, I'm sure.

 

[ksinger]

Tuition is so rapidly on the rise because states have been cutting budget allotments that used to go to schools. It used to be that all education was subsidized and that public universities and community colleges were heavily subsidized by state governments. That money has been largely cut, which is one major reason we have seen tuition spikes, particularly in public education. Instead of subsidizing everyone's education, now we subsidize the few through loan forgiveness (and it is really very few who ever qualify) and are moving toward subsidizing none. I would much rather return to the time when we funded education in a way that made it attainable to more people than bicker over who is worthy or unworthy of affordable education. Everyone is. We shouldn't need loan forgiveness because no one should have to rely on loans to get a college education, especially one to the order of a mortgage or equivalent.


On review, I will add, to address megumic's earlier question, tuition increase has something to do with supply/demand, but not because there are more institutions than students. Applications are growing heavily, across sectors, so filling classes is not an issue. A second, though still important, issue is the facilities "arms race" most universities are participating in to recruit students. This irresponsible race to build state of the art unions, fitness facilities, dorms, etc. cost so much money and universities prefer to staff class with underpaid graduate students in contingent adjuncts to fund gyms for 18-22-year-olds on par with what professional athletes use. The central issue is the state budget cuts, but building ridiculous facilities in the era of slashed budgets is beyond foolish.

And unfortunately, talking about how college should be the right of everyone, in an era when we are willing to cut government workers, fire and police protection, and teachers - on what amounts to a national scale - is pretty moot. Not that long ago, we were not striving to college educate EVERYONE. Nowadays we don't even question whether that goal is desirable or not, let alone attainable. It is one of those discussions that desperately needs to happen in a national context, but never will.

Oh, and another facet of the "arms race" - many of those state universities, you know - the ones started to educate the residents of the STATE, in addition to raising tuition and fees at an insane clip, have now virtually privatized themselves, and recruit top talent out-of-state and international students (for the college's own prestige and for the higher tuition payments from those students), effectively crowding out resident students by filling more and more slots that should have been going to tax paying residents.

 

[megumic]

You all seem to be skirting around suggesting socialized higher education, no?

Octavia -- yes thank you for mentioning that. I meant filing separately to qualify for Loan Forgiveness and Income-Based Repayment -- he makes too much for IBR to be an option unless we file separately (or get divorced....). But yes, we do need to do our math in advance to make sure it's worth it, including interest deduction.

If there's one thing I've learned about paying back loans, it's that 1-you benefit if you're not married, and 2-the less you earn, the less you pay. It figures!

 

[ksinger]

You all seem to be skirting around suggesting socialized higher education, no?

Octavia -- yes thank you for mentioning that. I meant filing separately to qualify for Loan Forgiveness and Income-Based Repayment -- he makes too much for IBR to be an option unless we file separately (or get divorced....). But yes, we do need to do our math in advance to make sure it's worth it, including interest deduction.

If there's one thing I've learned about paying back loans, it's that 1-you benefit if you're not married, and 2-the less you earn, the less you pay. It figures!

Well, as Katamari pointed out, all education used to be subsidized, or "socializied" if you will, and it worked fairly well. The goal is not necessarily to socialize education, but to stem the erosion of funding, and the spending of monies on stupid fluff like health clubs. We - the country - are currently having a serious attack of schizophrenia about education (one of many over the years) where on the one hand we scream that all must be college educated to compete in the new economy, while on the other hand, we are nodding assent to insane increases in tuition at state universities, pricing out the very people who need them the most, and what amounts to the systematic dismantling of the public schools. It's crazy.

 

[Circe]

Tuition is so rapidly on the rise because states have been cutting budget allotments that used to go to schools. It used to be that all education was subsidized and that public universities and community colleges were heavily subsidized by state governments. That money has been largely cut, which is one major reason we have seen tuition spikes, particularly in public education. Instead of subsidizing everyone's education, now we subsidize the few through loan forgiveness (and it is really very few who ever qualify) and are moving toward subsidizing none. I would much rather return to the time when we funded education in a way that made it attainable to more people than bicker over who is worthy or unworthy of affordable education. Everyone is. We shouldn't need loan forgiveness because no one should have to rely on loans to get a college education, especially one to the order of a mortgage or equivalent.
On review, I will add, to address megumic's earlier question, tuition increase has something to do with supply/demand, but not because there are more institutions than students. Applications are growing heavily, across sectors, so filling classes is not an issue. A second, though still important, issue is the facilities "arms race" most universities are participating in to recruit students. This irresponsible race to build state of the art unions, fitness facilities, dorms, etc. cost so much money and universities prefer to staff class with underpaid graduate students in contingent adjuncts to fund gyms for 18-22-year-olds on par with what professional athletes use. The central issue is the state budget cuts, but building ridiculous facilities in the era of slashed budgets is beyond foolish.

Thank you for your insight, Katamari. I think the bolded part above states (albeit a bit more diplomatically) what my main point was. It's funny. I've taught as a grad student, tenure-track faculty, and now, adjunct. (I'm in the same position as Circe, I believe, from Cuso's thread that I guess was deleted?) I honestly never noticed the facilities "arms race", but this is true!!! I guess it brings the school revenues in sports ticket sales, attracts applicants, and justifies sky-high mandatory activities fees and dining plans. You're right that they're not blowing the budget on the graduate teaching assistants! At both my tier 1 and top 20 grad school I could not afford to live alone in an apartment on my pay and cover the bills. I took some loans in the beginning, but decided to move home for the second half of grad school. (to the ridicule of many) Aside from the financial issue and the fact that I feel many grad students make fantastic teachers (fresh enthusiasm, close to current research, etc.), I'd bet many paying parents aren't thrilled to see so many of their son's/daughter's classes staffed this way. Times have changed, I'm sure.

Dingdingdingding to all of this!

And, to reference a later comment, I'm not "skirting" the suggestion of socialized education: I'm flatly for it. My undergrad education was as close to that as is possible in this country - I went to a city college, and I spent 4 years getting cross-examined as to what on earth I thought I was going to do with that degree, why hadn't I taken out the loans to go to an Ivy, etc., etc. I graduated at the top of my class, got a scholarship, and went to an Ivy for grad school.

My first day of grad school, I think I was really expecting there to be a quantifiable difference ... something that would make the power of difference in tuition worthwhile. You know what? They do not withhold information from you at lower-tiered universities! Given the ridiculous nature of the academic job market, you're not necessarily getting access to better or worse professors, either.

The difference lies in two things: one, the aforementioned arms race, which gives students really pretty surroundings, and two, access to the rest of your student body. If you plan to go into a field where connections matter, that may be the only reason to pony up the money. (If you're going for the quad, yes, I think you're shallow.) So what are the results?

I am damned lucky that I got a Ph.D. without incurring any debt. Note the use of the word "lucky" - having been on an admissions committee or two, I know just what a crapshoot it is. It means that I *can* work as an adjunct now without sacrificing more than my pride - I don't have to give up my dreams *or* my ability to eat. One of my close friends? Went to an Ivy for undergrad, and then got scholarships for her Ph.D. She nevertheless graduated with a little bit of accumulated debt - not much, just 30K or so. And yet, despite the fact that she's TT, on a Humanities professor's salary, it is going to take her the rest of her life to pay that off, and she's probably going to be stressed about finances the whole time, because the salaries academia pays are in no way commensurate with the fees academia incurs (just like pretty much every other profession out there at this point - don't even get me started on law schools).

Is that an argument for loan forgiveness? As much as I'd like it to be ... no. But it is a sign that the system is seriously broken. Practically everybody I went to grad school with was independently wealthy. The promulgation of *that* system, where the rich get a nice education which allows them to garner even more success in life, and the poor get to go to crappy schools *and* spend the rest of their lives in debt for the privilege ... not only does it encourage class stratification, but it's actually not self-sustaining. Given what Katamari and Siamese_Kitty mention up-top, it *requires* that we keep increasing class size and raising tuition just to keep pace with inflation and keep the institutions going. And the institutions themselves generally *need* to spend their allocated budget from the state if they're going to receive a like amount for the next fiscal year ... so, in the full knowledge that academics will work for peanuts and the strong belief that America is an aspirational nation and that if students can't go to a "real" fancy school they at least want to go to the ersatz variety that can offer them a top-notch gym, they commit to projects of expansion that require further infusions of capitol, probably hikes in tuition, and more debt for their students.

Vicious circle. If I ever run for office, it's going to be on the platform of rebuilding our current system of higher ed. on a socialist model nationwide.