Check out the website Project on Student Debt. Students that attend for-profit colleges take out the most loans and are more likely to end in default.
Another interesting read is Barbarians in the Ivory Tower. The article highlights the experiences of several students who attended for-profit colleges.
Thank you. I found this PDF to be most interesting, although I’m also wondering what percentage of students are at for-profit of schools and what percentage of the debt is theirs. I’m poking around ed.gov to see what I can see.
This sounds good and all, but if my imaginary son or daughter told me they were deciding between majoring in poly-sci or chemistry, and I felt like they had the same aptitude in both, I would probably try to influence them offering to pay the tuition costs for the latter versus than the former. If I thought they had more aptitude for chemistry, I might tell them that I would only cover the costs for this major. Then I’d leave it up to them to decide whether or not to saddle themselves with debt.
I agree that we need people in the humanities. Humans can’t survive on science and technology alone. But I also don’t think parents should be obligated to pay the costs of their grown children’s educational pursuits no matter how impractical and ambitious. Seems to me if a person is bold enough to decide they want to study X, they should be prepared to take on the financial costs of that decision without later whining about all the broken promises and shattered dreams.
And since college kids who can’t land a job post-college often end up on their parents’ doorsteps or in their wallets, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for parents to say at some point, “Hey now. Let’s not get carried away with all that basketweaving.”
But I don’t really know what the solution is either.
If I were your daughter, I’d major in poli-sci and pay for it myself to spite you. I actually did pay my own way in college. This is tangential, but I think having kids without the financial ability and willingness to finance their choice of undergrad degree is pretty irresponsible.
You might do it to spite me, but it would just make me proud. I’d be proud that you cared enough to follow your own dream that you’d be willing to pay for it yourself. Why wouldn’t that garner respect from someone who has always prized independence?
My parents didn’t cover my tuition and I made it out okay. I think being responsible for my tuition made me take ownership of my education and helped me to make wiser decisions. So naturally, I’d want my imaginary children to have the same experience.
Though, I guess it would be disappointing to see a grown person I raised being petty and “spiteful” with their educational opportunities. I would have pretty low expectations for such an individual, to be honest.
:eek:
I find your latter statement to be a bit shocking, so let me double-check for clarity:
If a prospective parent or parents choose(s) to have a child, but cannot afford the $50-100K minimum price tag for this child to attend the school s/he prefers in any major s/he chooses, the parents are irresponsible?
We must agree to disagree in this case, although I think it was really admirable for you to work to pay for your own degree. If all US prospective parents hewed to your college funding expectations, well, the birth-rate would certainly plummet. I think I know only one person who would be able to meet your criteria, in fact.
If parents should be expected to pay for their children’s college educations, then those parents should not only get to control what their children study, but also what schools they attend. Why the hell not? It’s their money, their investment! I would think obligating parents to pay tuition would only lead to more kids being “spiteful” in the way that Rachel described.
I think the issue is that tuition costs have risen all out of kilter with inflation and, even more, minimum wage. Working your way through is much less feasible today than even fifteen years ago.
Yes, and given this reality, students can’t afford to “pursue their dreams” at any and all costs. Studying anything in college made sense when it wasn’t so expensive and when having a college degree was special. None of those things are true now.
Seeing as how I’m likely not going to have children, this is all theoretical for me. But still, I don’t see a problem with a parent telling their college kid, “Look, I will cover your tuition only if you major in X, Y, or Z and attend either college A or college B. Or, I will cover half the costs if you minor in X, Y, and Z.” I had scholarships in college that had stricter requirements. I really don’t understand why parents shouldn’t have the same strings tied to their purses.
In China, parents generally do play the deciding role in what a student studies. As a result, China is extremely well prepared for the labor market of 1990.
The previous generation is not always attuned to the modern labor market, much less the labor market of the future. We have parents encouraging their kids to go in to law school, which is waaaay grim these days. In the meantime, a kid who wants to study, say, data mining might get blank looks from their parents who still think AOL is the internet and that computers are expensive toys.
Trying to game the labor market doesn’t work particularly well. What works is building a strong foundation at something you are good at and interested in, fighting tooth and nail through the entry levels, building transferable skills, networking like crazy, being ready to move to where the jobs are and always, always, always always keeping one eye on what you are doing to grow your own career.
The main problem with basket-weaving majors is not the subject matter itself as much as the fact that students in these fields get
Too hung up on the idea of becoming a professor, and don’t work to build transferable skills that will help them in an ever changing labor market.
I have the iconic bad major- film. Outside of those rough first few years out of school, it had done nothing but help me. But that’s because I have drawn upon the skills I learned (writing, analysis, storytelling, project management) while aggressively directing my career and building skills. You just can’t sit back and coast in a career any more. Not in a good major. Not in a bad major. It’s always going to be a fight.
Being able to feed them, yes. But you are asking parents to look pretty far ahead. Someone’s career situation might be very different in 17 years, and so might the college situation. Not saving for college, maybe irresponsible. But the ability to do that changes over time also.
When I told my father I was majoring in computer science, he told me that I should take some business classes to have something to fall back on.
My daughter acted in some NYU masters level student films, and the one thing that the students all agreed on was that an undergraduate film degree was not very useful in actually getting into the top level of film making. They thought that majors like art and writing were far more useful. You seem to have found what the major is actually good for.
Oh, I’ve no problem with parents setting limits on what they are willing to pay for. I just object to people that feel that since they worked their way through, kids today should, too.
Chemistry might not be the best example of a high ROI major. My brother-in-law is a contract R&D chemist (PhD). His company is barely holding on, because very little actual chemistry is happening in the US any more. Corporate R&D is getting off-shored at an increasing rate, and public financing of scientific research is being sacrificed at the Altar of Austerity.
You might have a better argument with Chemical Engineering, where the petrochemical boom in the US is causing high demand. But that’s relatively recent, since the development of frakking and subsequent increases in domestic production.
Nothing wrong with a political science degree. It teaches kids how to think about social dynamics and the benefits and perils of politics and government. That makes for an engaged and thoughtful citizen, even if you don’t get paid to “do” political science. And the writing and thinking skills are transferable to all kinds of jobs (chemistry majors may get some highly specialized skills, but they often don’t transfer well, nor do they often include a lot of written communication).
My daughter is a freshman at Washington U in St Louis. She’s already declared a history major, and I couldn’t be more proud. She might add econ as a second major, but she has time to decide. For bright kids, any liberal arts degree is a good one, whether it’s a “hard” or “soft” discipline.
(To the OP, my daughter’s aid package, which basically covers everything beyond our FAFSA EFC, was about 3/4 grant aid, 1/4 loans and work-study. The loans are all federally subsidized, so they’re small and don’t require repayment until after graduation.)
College is not trade school.
I don’t thnk parents OR their children really know what’s “marketable” at any given moment. It’s a complex thing, and that’s why I’m all for people putting their heads together and doing reserach, rather than making decisions based on what they see on TV.
Since you do have a child now, I’m curious how you would advise him or her. If they wanted to take after you and major in film, would you fully suport them financially? What if you knew they lacked the strengths that you possess that have allowed you to succeed?
If I had a kid who hates math, didn’t seem to possess strong analytical or communication skills, and absolutely hate the outdoors or getting “dirty”, and yet they wanted to take after me and become an environmental scientist, I would feel obligated to let them know my concerns. And if they were expecting me to pay for their education, I will feel an obligation to myself to keep them on a wise path. I’m not saying this would be easy to figure out. But if we are quick to acknowledge that the world is a cruel and hard place for college students and recent graduates, then it makes perfect seense to strike for a level-headed strategy rather than the most ambitious, idealistic one.
Seems to me that your superior graduate education made all the difference for you. A lot of people lack the ability or the financial reserves to parlay their liberal arts degrees into something lucrative, though. Do you think you would be where you are today if you’d studied at Eastern State College? Do you think the majority of film majors go on to experience the same level of success that you have?
If I were a parent of a wannabe film maker and I was trying to decide whether to be disappointed or happy, I’d want to know if your case is the norm or if you’re just a remarkable person. I’m curious what you think.
I’m not bashing poly-sci or saying it’s a terrible major. But if my imaginary kid has only gotten accepted to bottom tier schools and isn’t all that smart or charming? Yeah, I’d feel more comfortable with them persuing a technical degree than something like poly-sci. They can get a job as a lab tech if they’ve only got a couple of years of science/chemistry coursework. I don’t know if a couple years of poly-sci coursework has much currency.
Your daughter attends Wash U. That’s pretty top-shelf. A poly-sci degree there means more than it does at Eastern State College. You can study just about anything at a premium university and go somewhere in life. The same can’t be said for other places. And I think we’d only be deluding ourselves if we pretend this isn’t the case. (Your daughter also has a generous aid package. You aren’t footing the bill yourself, which is what I’m talking about.)
And no, college isn’t a trade school. Which is why I disagree with Rachel. I don’t think parents should be obligated to buy their kids luxuries. Finding yourself and reveling in your passions and maturing under a controlled environment for four/five years? Those things are luxuries. But honing a craft, developing marketable skills, and setting yourself up for a sustainable career that is rewarding–these are essentials. If a parent feels like their kid’s decisions line up with these things, then I agree the parent should try to help as much as they feel comfortable. But if the kid just wants to find themselves? Unless the parents are rolling in dough and don’t mind supporting this lifestyle, then no, they shouldn’t feel obligated to do this.
Fair enough. A lot of kids are going to college who probably shouldn’t, at least not right out of high school. Indifferent high school students (unless they’re the so-smart-they’re-bored kind) won’t likely benefit from college very much. My wife, who teaches high school, thinks there should be more alternatives outside of traditional academia for the kids who aren’t inclined to the classroom. More secondary vocational ed would be great, but funding for that sucks in the current budgetary environment (not to mention the fetish for the Common Core Curriculum).
Well, not the entire bill, but we’re not getting off cheaply, by any means. Wife and self are Wash U alumni, and it was much more modestly priced when we were there. And a hell of a lot less competitive. 
I think that if the kid actually has a passion, they will gain the marketable skills they need at any school, and with any major. If the student is going to school to punch a ticket, couldn’t care less about learning and just wants to party for a while, I agree that they probably should be sat down and told to get a job and figure out what they want to do with their lives before anybody mortgages the house.
I have a friend who does guidance at community college and this is pretty much what she says – she gets plenty of 18 year olds who don’t care, don’t do the work, and have to have their parents do basic tasks like register them for class. And she’ll get parents calling asking “What am I spending my money on?”. IMHO, in that case, yeah, that’s the time to stop spending your money. Like RickG said that’s a world of difference from a motivated kid who hasn’t found their major yet.
Now if it’s a few semesters at community college, and the kid is living at home and working, then it’s not the end of the world. But what I have seen is kids who similarly lack academic motivation and then go into 5-figure debt for a private college (maybe in a cool expensive city like Boston or DC) and do more or less the bare minimum to graduate. Not necessarily lazy kids, they had part-time jobs that they took seriously, they just weren’t motivated in the classroom. I dunno, I just don’t see the point in that case. I mean, at no other point in life do we encourage adults, let alone teenagers, to borrow $50k-$100k for an expense that they don’t want that badly, don’t entirely know how to use, and don’t have a way to pay back the loan.
I agree. But the thing is, I don’t think most 18 year olds have a passion. Or if they have one, it’s not accompanied by competency or aptitude. It’s great for a kid to call themselves a history geek because they love the History Channel and King Arthur mythology. But if they can’t write a decent term paper and they lack the ability to learn how, then love isn’t going to be enough.
I majored in biology in college. I liked biology well enough, but I didn’t have a passion for it. But this was fine because I happened to be sufficiently good at it. I was good enough at it to get into a good graduate program afterwards. Passion wasn’t what got me my degrees or my current job.
Seems to me that whenever we have conversations like this on the Dope, we tend to focus on either the bright and hard working students who’d succeed no matter what OR the not-so-bright and lazy students who have no business going to college. It’s like we overlook the big middle called “normal individuals”. The kids who took all honors classes in high school, but never could make the cut for AP. Or the good student who doesn’t have a passion and doesn’t know what they want to be when they grow up. A normal kid isn’t lazy or stupid. But their writing probably isn’t going to be the best in the class. They are probably not going to make a memorable impression on a professor and be invited to be their research assistant. Because they’re just “normal”. Most people have normal kids. And most people, by definition, are normal.
If you’ve got to be passionate and above-average to leverage something like poly-sci into a career, that means “normal” student would be better of considering another field of study. Right?
Am I the only person in the entire country who knows about Income Based Repayment? It seems like it sometimes.