And we used to pay for college too as the bit you responded to earlier pointed out.
What’s your point?
Yeah for a brief time in a few states. Not since the USA was a nation.
And mostly free (some fees but waaaay less expensive compared to today) into the 1970s when the USA was totally a nation.
Cheaper certainly, but again, back in the days when we didnt send 70% to college, so it was cheaper for the states.
Thanks, that was much more succinct than I would have made it.
Define always.
Since before the USA was a nation, in the 1600’s.
Yeah, but for the vast majority of that time, graduation rates from high school were in the single digits. Until the 40s, it was under 50%.
How did you put it?
Maybe we should stop offering free high school education. After all, why should we care if a farmer or janitor is literate?
https://www.safeandcivilschools.com/research/graduation_rates.php
And you think that STEM PhDs from research universities account for most of the PhDs in the country?
peccavi mentioned nothing about Master’s degrees which you also claimed were free most of the time. Most of the Master’s degrees and PhDs in this country were not handed out for free nor did they involve a stipend paid to the student. If that were the case, the student debt for graduates with advanced degrees would not be twice that of undergraduates. Would either of you care to explain why all of these geniuses are getting paid to go to school but end up doubling their debt?
A 2014 report indicated that about 40 percent of all student debt financed graduate education, yet only about 16 percent of all students in the United States are graduate students (Delisle, 2014).
40 percent of all student debt in 2014 was accrued by the 16 percent of students who pursued a graduate degree. That’s kind of hard to imagine if the majority of graduate degrees are free.
The argument that student-loan forgiveness will make the “poor shmucks” who paid off theirs strikes me as specious. It reminds me of an argument I’ve heard against raising the minimum wage, the one that says those making above minimum but who will suddenly find themselves at the new minimum will be discouraged from all the workers suddenly boosted to their level, because those others did not have to work as hard to get to that level of pay.
That
- omits the half of students with zero debt from the denominator
- includes undergraduate debt, payment on which is often deferred
See NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates for details on sources of support and levels of debt. My recollection is that less than a third of PhD recipients leave with any graduate education-related debt.
Even with a full tuition waiver (i.e. “free”), keep in mind that food and a roof cost money. We’re talking 5+ years, with limited time for (or a flat out ban on) external work. I haven’t seen data on stipend frequency or size. I saved money back then. But one guy in my lab had a non-working spouse and two babies.
Others have given reasons, but even if the charged price is zero, the opportunity cost is not. I missed out on years of much higher pay. I eventually came out ahead financially (not that the decision was entirely financial) but that break-even point can be distant or non-existent for some.
Interesting.
When we talk about the student loan debt “crisis,” it seems like a lot of the time we’re thinking about undergraduates (like for example in this thread when people talk about choices made by 18-year-olds).
That’s what we talk about, but those students usually have less than $25k in debt. Federal student loans that a kid (not the parents) can take out are capped. The loan limit for dependent undergrads is under $30k for federal loans over four years.
Most loans are taken out by people pursuing JDs, MDs, MBAs, etc. Unlike a STEM PhD, you don’t generally get fellowships for business, medical or law school. That’s when you really rack up the bucks and end up six figures in debt.
But $25k is a new car. $25k is moving back in with Mom and Dad for a year post college while working full time. $25k is Mom and Dad having not bought their own new cars every four years, but instead bought slightly used cars every six.
All of this assumes the kids are coming from our rapidly decreasing middle class. We should have more grant money available to those coming from low income households. (I would argue that’s a lower priority than addressing the disparity in high school graduation rate between high income and low income households). But I really shudder at paying for the undergrad choices a kid (and their parents, because you generally ARE 17 when you are making these choices) makes to attend a private school when Mom and Dad just redid the kitchen with new cupboards and countertops, and the Junior band trip was to Paris.
And frankly, I don’t care what sort of grades you get once you get to college. Because bad grades in college aren’t just because you partied. They can be stress induced. Because you had a HORRIBLE breakup that involved revenge porn. Or because you got ill. Or because it took you a year or two to figure out how to do college and you struggled to write college level papers. Or because you decided that you wanted to take Japanese and it turned out to be a LOT harder than you thought. Ideally, college is about learning how to deal with those things, how to fail and then learn from it.
Yes. Is this bizarre question an admission that you do not?
One can, of course, borrow more via private loans. As you note, the typical undergrad balance (when there is one) is low. But we don’t stop people from borrowing $80k for out of state tuition if they want to.
If it were me making policy, I would make private loans dischargeable by bankruptcy. Put the onus of making good loans on the for-profit corporations making those loans.
But realistically, banks aren’t signing an 18 year old kid to $80k in debt for a degree in underwater basketweaving without a co-signer even now. Parents are co-signing those loans, its the parents credit rating that got the loan.
Good point. And I forgot there’s also Parent PLUS, which I don’t know much about.
Easy enough to look up. Its about 60% STEM and about 40% other - Social Sciences, Arts, Education. Not all those STEM PhDs are from research universities (that data is, I believe, in the link, but I didn’t parse it out). Of course, that is just PhDs. If you add in JDs and MBAs and MFAs, the numbers change.
The psych and econ departments very much want to lump themselves with STEM IME. I haven’t heard yet whether we’ve let them in.
Oh and Table 39 for debt by field, if you haven’t found that already. Since it’s pertinent to some of the above discussion.