Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:47
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just read on another post that someone is paying $95K/year for USC.
Several kids from my kids' schools are starting there this fall.
I know most on DCUM can pony up $400K for 4 years but how many people like this are really out there?
I also know these schools have 40% (or whatnot) that pay $0/year.
At what point will the price of some of these schools begin to effect the size of their applicant pool?
Either because people don't have the cash or say "that is insane--screw it".
When you’re no longer allowed to take out Parent Plus Loans up to the cost of attendance. NYU & USC graduates are #1 for PPL debt.
Or how about when the schools are on the hook when people default on loans? At the moment, the schools risk nothing when they jack up costs.
What? Why would schools be "on the hook when people default on loans?" Schools do NOT take the loans. Plenty of people go to these schools withOUT PPL.
If parents are dumb enough to take PPL, then they need to deal with the repayment. Nobody is forcing you to do this. There are literally hundreds of schools you can attend that will be affordable and not require more than regular student loans that max out at 27K for 4 years
How can the PPL even work? If you assume that most of these parents are 50+ years old at the time of signing the loan (and don't have cash in hand at the time) how the heck are they going to pay back $200-300K by the time
they retire at age 65? And yes, they can work until they're 80 but realistically not a huge percentage of people have significant earning power over the age of 65 (or are even employable!!)
And not to be too macabre but some (not an insignificant number) will be dead by 65.
I can't imagine 95% of these loans are paid back in full (and many go completely unpaid).
Does the school eat this cost or the federal government?
The federal government. The school gets off scot-free.
+1 The Fed student loan program is the reason college tuition exponentially increased so quickly. As students could borrow more, the schools hiked tuition. They could care less about student debt (the colleges). They get more $$$$$.
The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition.
Parent plus loans, more specifically. Traditional undergraduate students can only borrow up to $27k TOTAL throughout 4 years of college in their own name. Doesn’t matter what the school’s COA is. That $27k number hasn’t changed since 2007, if I recall correctly.
To be blunt, if you can’t pay off only $27k in federal student loans on a 10 year repayment plan, your degree wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
You’re equating stafford loans (which have a limit) and parent plus (which don’t)
I’m aware, and that’s not what I was doing. The PP I replied to said the “fed student loan program” in general was the problem, and I explained the distinction.
Parent plus are part of the federal student loan program. If they were just private loans, they would be dischargale and much harder to get
Private loans are as easy to get & and are very, very difficult to discharge. Ex. Sallie Mae, College Avenue, Discover student loans.
People choose PPLs over private loans because PPLs have more favorable repayment plans.
The reason that they are difficult to discharge is that they are part of the student loan program. If they were just personal loans, they would be easily dischargeable
They would be, but that would also mean higher interest rates & more limits on what you could take out. That would lower tuition because people would have less access to unlimited free money.
People say that would “reduce access to college” for disadvantaged students.
How? Most "disadvantaged students" come from lower incomes and are getting major FA to attend most schools. Not many "disadvantaged students" who are full pay at Harvard.
It would reduce access to people who are not smart enough to not go into major debt for undergrad. But in reality, these people would then learn to find schools they can afford if the loans are not available. Nobody is taking $200K in PPL to attend a state school.
The vast majority of disadvantaged students go to public universities, if they go to college, not an Ivy. And saying that disadvantaged students, who are typically FGLI, are being “not smart” about college is offensive.
Was not stating "disadvantages students are not smart". Most disadvantaged students are FGLI and they are getting FA, they are not taking $50K+/year in PPL to get thru college. I'm talking about the donut hole families taking high PPLs when their kid could find affordable schools. IMO that is not a smart choice. Families making $200K+ who think taking major loans so their kid can attend an elite college are not being smart IMO. They can attend a state school for $30K/year and the family can likely help cash flow a significant portion and do not need to take 200K+.
Do you realize that maxing out federal loans is part of the aid package at almost every public school?
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:47
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:I remember in an earlier conversation here suggesting that it was odd that kids attending 60K private high schools aspired to work for the foreign service, as it didn't seem like a great "return on investment." I was told that only members of the proletariat such as myself cared about things like return on investment or how much money you would make at the end of the day. apparently if you're independently wealthy, you work for pleasure and not for a salary or something. I wonder how that idea plays into these conversations about university tuition as well. Do the people who close their eyes and write a check for 100K per child per year for college simply not care about return on investment, starting salary, etc? It seems that most of us members of the proletariat who do those calculations end up deciding it only makes sense to pay for private in a select number of majors, select number of schools. Are the private second and third tier schools exclusively full of full pay wealthy people who don't care about return on investment because they don't ever plan to work? Seems like a strange long run plan for a university to bank on no one ever needing a job at the end.
Private 2nd/3rd tier schools typically offer good merit for top students. So most are not paying $80K/year. My own kid (25 ACT/3.5UW) went to a T80 school and received 35% merit for 4 years. Never paid more than 42K in a year. They could have attended a T120 school for only $30K/year with over 65% merit (higher because they were at/+ 90% at this school instead of ~50%) Merit is out there. College does NOT have to cost 80K/year. You can attend private schools for $30-40K or less (heck if my kid with good stats but not stellar can get that, imagine what someone with 1500/4.0UW/10-12 APs would get). My higher stats kid got 60% merit at a T50 school bringing costs from 80K to 40K and brought $65K down to 35K at another T60 school. Merit is out there, it's really not that difficult to find if you want/need it.
and if we really needed money, my avg student could have attended the in-state U for ~$24K, the top kiddo for $15K after merit. T120 in state school---join honors college, get a great education and graduate basically debt free. In our state, my kid could earn most of that $15K themselves just working summer and breaks.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:46
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
At that level of tuition, 40k in debt seems reasonable
It’s not. At least $13k of that is parent plus or private loans that have exceptionally high interest rates.
If the COA is 200k over 4 years, how much do you think most families can pay up front?
Very few. That’s why most families go instate.
It's 38k a year instate, again what do you think families can actually afford to pay up front?
At public universities, a sizeable number of kids transferred from CC, are nontraditional age, graduate early, are veterans, are living with a ton of roommates off-campus in very questionable living situations and/or are working 25+ hours a week year-round to put themselves through school.
Relatively few are being directly handed, say, $38,000 a year from the Bank of Mom and Dad.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:42
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
At that level of tuition, 40k in debt seems reasonable
It’s not. At least $13k of that is parent plus or private loans that have exceptionally high interest rates.
If the COA is 200k over 4 years, how much do you think most families can pay up front?
Very few. That’s why most families go instate.
It's 38k a year instate, again what do you think families can actually afford to pay up front?
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:42
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just read on another post that someone is paying $95K/year for USC.
Several kids from my kids' schools are starting there this fall.
I know most on DCUM can pony up $400K for 4 years but how many people like this are really out there?
I also know these schools have 40% (or whatnot) that pay $0/year.
At what point will the price of some of these schools begin to effect the size of their applicant pool?
Either because people don't have the cash or say "that is insane--screw it".
When you’re no longer allowed to take out Parent Plus Loans up to the cost of attendance. NYU & USC graduates are #1 for PPL debt.
Or how about when the schools are on the hook when people default on loans? At the moment, the schools risk nothing when they jack up costs.
What? Why would schools be "on the hook when people default on loans?" Schools do NOT take the loans. Plenty of people go to these schools withOUT PPL.
If parents are dumb enough to take PPL, then they need to deal with the repayment. Nobody is forcing you to do this. There are literally hundreds of schools you can attend that will be affordable and not require more than regular student loans that max out at 27K for 4 years
How can the PPL even work? If you assume that most of these parents are 50+ years old at the time of signing the loan (and don't have cash in hand at the time) how the heck are they going to pay back $200-300K by the time
they retire at age 65? And yes, they can work until they're 80 but realistically not a huge percentage of people have significant earning power over the age of 65 (or are even employable!!)
And not to be too macabre but some (not an insignificant number) will be dead by 65.
I can't imagine 95% of these loans are paid back in full (and many go completely unpaid).
Does the school eat this cost or the federal government?
The federal government. The school gets off scot-free.
+1 The Fed student loan program is the reason college tuition exponentially increased so quickly. As students could borrow more, the schools hiked tuition. They could care less about student debt (the colleges). They get more $$$$$.
The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition.
Parent plus loans, more specifically. Traditional undergraduate students can only borrow up to $27k TOTAL throughout 4 years of college in their own name. Doesn’t matter what the school’s COA is. That $27k number hasn’t changed since 2007, if I recall correctly.
To be blunt, if you can’t pay off only $27k in federal student loans on a 10 year repayment plan, your degree wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
You’re equating stafford loans (which have a limit) and parent plus (which don’t)
I’m aware, and that’s not what I was doing. The PP I replied to said the “fed student loan program” in general was the problem, and I explained the distinction.
Parent plus are part of the federal student loan program. If they were just private loans, they would be dischargale and much harder to get
Private loans are as easy to get & and are very, very difficult to discharge. Ex. Sallie Mae, College Avenue, Discover student loans.
People choose PPLs over private loans because PPLs have more favorable repayment plans.
The reason that they are difficult to discharge is that they are part of the student loan program. If they were just personal loans, they would be easily dischargeable
They would be, but that would also mean higher interest rates & more limits on what you could take out. That would lower tuition because people would have less access to unlimited free money.
People say that would “reduce access to college” for disadvantaged students.
How? Most "disadvantaged students" come from lower incomes and are getting major FA to attend most schools. Not many "disadvantaged students" who are full pay at Harvard.
It would reduce access to people who are not smart enough to not go into major debt for undergrad. But in reality, these people would then learn to find schools they can afford if the loans are not available. Nobody is taking $200K in PPL to attend a state school.
The vast majority of disadvantaged students go to public universities, if they go to college, not an Ivy. And saying that disadvantaged students, who are typically FGLI, are being “not smart” about college is offensive.
Was not stating "disadvantages students are not smart". Most disadvantaged students are FGLI and they are getting FA, they are not taking $50K+/year in PPL to get thru college. I'm talking about the donut hole families taking high PPLs when their kid could find affordable schools. IMO that is not a smart choice. Families making $200K+ who think taking major loans so their kid can attend an elite college are not being smart IMO. They can attend a state school for $30K/year and the family can likely help cash flow a significant portion and do not need to take 200K+.
You seem to be ignoring that it’s incredibly rare for FGLI kids to even apply to top schools.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:39
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just read on another post that someone is paying $95K/year for USC.
Several kids from my kids' schools are starting there this fall.
I know most on DCUM can pony up $400K for 4 years but how many people like this are really out there?
I also know these schools have 40% (or whatnot) that pay $0/year.
At what point will the price of some of these schools begin to effect the size of their applicant pool?
Either because people don't have the cash or say "that is insane--screw it".
When you’re no longer allowed to take out Parent Plus Loans up to the cost of attendance. NYU & USC graduates are #1 for PPL debt.
Or how about when the schools are on the hook when people default on loans? At the moment, the schools risk nothing when they jack up costs.
What? Why would schools be "on the hook when people default on loans?" Schools do NOT take the loans. Plenty of people go to these schools withOUT PPL.
If parents are dumb enough to take PPL, then they need to deal with the repayment. Nobody is forcing you to do this. There are literally hundreds of schools you can attend that will be affordable and not require more than regular student loans that max out at 27K for 4 years
How can the PPL even work? If you assume that most of these parents are 50+ years old at the time of signing the loan (and don't have cash in hand at the time) how the heck are they going to pay back $200-300K by the time
they retire at age 65? And yes, they can work until they're 80 but realistically not a huge percentage of people have significant earning power over the age of 65 (or are even employable!!)
And not to be too macabre but some (not an insignificant number) will be dead by 65.
I can't imagine 95% of these loans are paid back in full (and many go completely unpaid).
Does the school eat this cost or the federal government?
The federal government. The school gets off scot-free.
+1 The Fed student loan program is the reason college tuition exponentially increased so quickly. As students could borrow more, the schools hiked tuition. They could care less about student debt (the colleges). They get more $$$$$.
The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition.
Parent plus loans, more specifically. Traditional undergraduate students can only borrow up to $27k TOTAL throughout 4 years of college in their own name. Doesn’t matter what the school’s COA is. That $27k number hasn’t changed since 2007, if I recall correctly.
To be blunt, if you can’t pay off only $27k in federal student loans on a 10 year repayment plan, your degree wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
You’re equating stafford loans (which have a limit) and parent plus (which don’t)
I’m aware, and that’s not what I was doing. The PP I replied to said the “fed student loan program” in general was the problem, and I explained the distinction.
Parent plus are part of the federal student loan program. If they were just private loans, they would be dischargale and much harder to get
Private loans are as easy to get & and are very, very difficult to discharge. Ex. Sallie Mae, College Avenue, Discover student loans.
People choose PPLs over private loans because PPLs have more favorable repayment plans.
The reason that they are difficult to discharge is that they are part of the student loan program. If they were just personal loans, they would be easily dischargeable
They would be, but that would also mean higher interest rates & more limits on what you could take out. That would lower tuition because people would have less access to unlimited free money.
People say that would “reduce access to college” for disadvantaged students.
How? Most "disadvantaged students" come from lower incomes and are getting major FA to attend most schools. Not many "disadvantaged students" who are full pay at Harvard.
It would reduce access to people who are not smart enough to not go into major debt for undergrad. But in reality, these people would then learn to find schools they can afford if the loans are not available. Nobody is taking $200K in PPL to attend a state school.
The vast majority of disadvantaged students go to public universities, if they go to college, not an Ivy. And saying that disadvantaged students, who are typically FGLI, are being “not smart” about college is offensive.
Was not stating "disadvantages students are not smart". Most disadvantaged students are FGLI and they are getting FA, they are not taking $50K+/year in PPL to get thru college. I'm talking about the donut hole families taking high PPLs when their kid could find affordable schools. IMO that is not a smart choice. Families making $200K+ who think taking major loans so their kid can attend an elite college are not being smart IMO. They can attend a state school for $30K/year and the family can likely help cash flow a significant portion and do not need to take 200K+.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:36
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:I remember in an earlier conversation here suggesting that it was odd that kids attending 60K private high schools aspired to work for the foreign service, as it didn't seem like a great "return on investment." I was told that only members of the proletariat such as myself cared about things like return on investment or how much money you would make at the end of the day. apparently if you're independently wealthy, you work for pleasure and not for a salary or something. I wonder how that idea plays into these conversations about university tuition as well. Do the people who close their eyes and write a check for 100K per child per year for college simply not care about return on investment, starting salary, etc? It seems that most of us members of the proletariat who do those calculations end up deciding it only makes sense to pay for private in a select number of majors, select number of schools. Are the private second and third tier schools exclusively full of full pay wealthy people who don't care about return on investment because they don't ever plan to work? Seems like a strange long run plan for a university to bank on no one ever needing a job at the end.
You seem to have confused college with trade school.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:34
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
I remember in an earlier conversation here suggesting that it was odd that kids attending 60K private high schools aspired to work for the foreign service, as it didn't seem like a great "return on investment." I was told that only members of the proletariat such as myself cared about things like return on investment or how much money you would make at the end of the day. apparently if you're independently wealthy, you work for pleasure and not for a salary or something. I wonder how that idea plays into these conversations about university tuition as well. Do the people who close their eyes and write a check for 100K per child per year for college simply not care about return on investment, starting salary, etc? It seems that most of us members of the proletariat who do those calculations end up deciding it only makes sense to pay for private in a select number of majors, select number of schools. Are the private second and third tier schools exclusively full of full pay wealthy people who don't care about return on investment because they don't ever plan to work? Seems like a strange long run plan for a university to bank on no one ever needing a job at the end.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:33
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
At that level of tuition, 40k in debt seems reasonable
It’s not. At least $13k of that is parent plus or private loans that have exceptionally high interest rates.
If the COA is 200k over 4 years, how much do you think most families can pay up front?
Very few. That’s why most families go instate.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:31
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
At that level of tuition, 40k in debt seems reasonable
It’s not. At least $13k of that is parent plus or private loans that have exceptionally high interest rates.
If the COA is 200k over 4 years, how much do you think most families can pay up front?
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:29
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
Penn State was on a list a few years ago of the most secretive public agencies in the US.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:29
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:It already is. In theory, we could "afford" to send our kids anywhere. In practice, DC1 chose to stay instate (where we get a tuition break on top of lower tuition anyway, due to one parent's job). Total for DC1 for 4 years should be around $100K, which is about what it was for me to go to an expensive private college back in the early 90's.
It's truly hard to imagine how it would be "worth" $300K more for an undergraduate education. We're already seeing more and more great students choosing public colleges and universities, and that helps to make those schools better. I think the tipping point will eventually be that if costs of private keep rising, the best students will be choosing public, and then the whole system will implode.
We saved 600 K total for our kids education, and at the end of the day we all decided that public was a much wiser choice - expensive did not seem better - honestly it seemed stupid to use all the money on "private" college. Our kids have now graduated from undergrad AND top professional schools with zero debt. This was a few years ago and it's even more expensive now....best decision we, as a family, ever made.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:28
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
At that level of tuition, 40k in debt seems reasonable
It’s not. At least $13k of that is parent plus or private loans that have exceptionally high interest rates.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:28
Subject: As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just read on another post that someone is paying $95K/year for USC.
Several kids from my kids' schools are starting there this fall.
I know most on DCUM can pony up $400K for 4 years but how many people like this are really out there?
I also know these schools have 40% (or whatnot) that pay $0/year.
At what point will the price of some of these schools begin to effect the size of their applicant pool?
Either because people don't have the cash or say "that is insane--screw it".
When you’re no longer allowed to take out Parent Plus Loans up to the cost of attendance. NYU & USC graduates are #1 for PPL debt.
Or how about when the schools are on the hook when people default on loans? At the moment, the schools risk nothing when they jack up costs.
What? Why would schools be "on the hook when people default on loans?" Schools do NOT take the loans. Plenty of people go to these schools withOUT PPL.
If parents are dumb enough to take PPL, then they need to deal with the repayment. Nobody is forcing you to do this. There are literally hundreds of schools you can attend that will be affordable and not require more than regular student loans that max out at 27K for 4 years
How can the PPL even work? If you assume that most of these parents are 50+ years old at the time of signing the loan (and don't have cash in hand at the time) how the heck are they going to pay back $200-300K by the time
they retire at age 65? And yes, they can work until they're 80 but realistically not a huge percentage of people have significant earning power over the age of 65 (or are even employable!!)
And not to be too macabre but some (not an insignificant number) will be dead by 65.
I can't imagine 95% of these loans are paid back in full (and many go completely unpaid).
Does the school eat this cost or the federal government?
The federal government. The school gets off scot-free.
+1 The Fed student loan program is the reason college tuition exponentially increased so quickly. As students could borrow more, the schools hiked tuition. They could care less about student debt (the colleges). They get more $$$$$.
The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition.
Parent plus loans, more specifically. Traditional undergraduate students can only borrow up to $27k TOTAL throughout 4 years of college in their own name. Doesn’t matter what the school’s COA is. That $27k number hasn’t changed since 2007, if I recall correctly.
To be blunt, if you can’t pay off only $27k in federal student loans on a 10 year repayment plan, your degree wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
You’re equating stafford loans (which have a limit) and parent plus (which don’t)
I’m aware, and that’s not what I was doing. The PP I replied to said the “fed student loan program” in general was the problem, and I explained the distinction.
Parent plus are part of the federal student loan program. If they were just private loans, they would be dischargale and much harder to get
Private loans are as easy to get & and are very, very difficult to discharge. Ex. Sallie Mae, College Avenue, Discover student loans.
People choose PPLs over private loans because PPLs have more favorable repayment plans.
The reason that they are difficult to discharge is that they are part of the student loan program. If they were just personal loans, they would be easily dischargeable
They would be, but that would also mean higher interest rates & more limits on what you could take out. That would lower tuition because people would have less access to unlimited free money.
People say that would “reduce access to college” for disadvantaged students.
How? Most "disadvantaged students" come from lower incomes and are getting major FA to attend most schools. Not many "disadvantaged students" who are full pay at Harvard.
It would reduce access to people who are not smart enough to not go into major debt for undergrad. But in reality, these people would then learn to find schools they can afford if the loans are not available. Nobody is taking $200K in PPL to attend a state school.
Not true. Lots of disproportionately first-gen, lower middle class families do.
Anonymous
05/09/2023 11:27
Subject: Re:As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The average student loan debt at Pitt in 2019 was $40,000, so it’s not just privates with these issues.
Pitt is 20k in state COA, 35k out of state. 40k seems about right for that level of tuition.
COA = tuition + room + board. COA there is about $38k.
Next year OOS COA for Dietrich (arts and sciences) is $52K.
Notable: Pitt is not a true public university. It (along with Temple and Penn State) are “state-related.” Pennsylvania gives them very little money, and every penny goes towards reducing tuition for Pennsylvania students. Pitt does not give admission preference to in-state students - they admit whoever they want.
Source: podcast with Pitt director of admissions.
At that level of tuition, 40k in debt seems reasonable