College sibblings? My God you're a kid.

I am 29 and my youngest sibling is under 1 years old--my parents have been married more than once. I have 5 siblings--I am very blessed indeed.

This isn't the only computer glitch to screw the American people.

29. Yep, you're a baby. A very blessed baby.

WHy not an investigation as to why the cost of college has increased 40% in the past ten years? There is no doubt this is all interrelated. I suggest you take a look at Grive City College, a great academic institution, which takes NO federal $$ and costs $16,000 per year.

College costs have been going up well above the rate of inflation since the 60s. It's one of the reasons that community colleges have become more and more popular. I'm not sure what can be done to reverse this trend, but it should be looked into.

BTW, tony, if you took the time you spent being insulting to google for the information, you could have learned that the national default rate on student loans is only about 5%, not 50%.

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/09/09132006.html

damn you Den, you got to Tony, before I could!

damn you Den, you got to Tony, before I could!

I have 2 year Associates degree and that is good enough for me. I never dug the school thing but, I still had to pay off student loans.

At at age 39, I have a decent federal job and a 7 year old daughter. I knew from day one that I needed to invest for my daughter's future if in fact she chooses to go to college. I refuse to depend on the 'system' to provide for her.

Whatever my daughter chooses to do with the money is her choice at age 21, but, at least she'll have it and won't have to sell her soul for grants, school loans, and private corporation student loans.

I took grants, school loans, and priv corp student loans and it was a great feeling to finally pay them off, all on my own steam.

For years I defaulted, making just enough to make ends meet but not enough to pay them back. I was even sued. They won. No degree. Defaulted loan. Judgement against me. All at 22 years old.

But one day, I decided to pull myself up from my bootstraps, and make a plan to pay everyone back. 2 years after that decision, I did. Before, I couldn't even qualify for a used car, now I own my own home. I am full time active duty and I am in grad school. I grew up and took responsonsibility.

Taking loans is not a bad thing. Without them I would never have been able to finish school (and with the help of tuition assistance through the military). Some of us just need a helping hand. We'll do the rest. The loan programs are helpful, as is the tuition assistance and GI Bill program. I am living proof.

The Department of Education needs to get their act together like I did. We will all benefit in the end.

Way to go Boss and Coach. Two people who took matters into there own hands. Wasn't easy but persistence was the key.

I too had loans to pay off after receiving my undergraduate degree. I knew the interest rates when I signed on for the loans. They were an afterthought at best. All I knew was get the loans or drop out of school. The latter was not an option. Payed them off over ten years. I could have stretched them to 20 years if the monthly payments were too high.

I also used time that could have been spent elsewhere to apply for grants. I had to be persistent. It was time consuming and inconvenient. They have to protect against fraud, which is rampant. When they said no I applied again. Eventually some help came.

I also went to a cooperative education school where the middle three years were 6 months school and 6 months work. 18 months of work throughout the 5-year engineering program was a big help. Today there are several schools that offer this program. In my case with my undergraduate school, it was mandatory.

Universities can and will charge whatever they want. Loans are offered at a stated interest rate. Jobs are available outside of school hours. Those are the rules. We can complain about the degree of difficulty of the task or we can get busy completing the task.

It is never can or can't. It is always will or won't.

I had student loans for my bachelor's degree. I remember we had to watch a mandatory video about the consequences of defaulting on them. After graduation, I made the payments every month. After a few years, I was able to buy a house and a few years after that, I was able to refinance and pay off the remainder of my student loan. Now, I'm within seven years of owning the house outright. I'll be 44 when that happens.

For my master's degree, I was fortunate to have gotten a job with a university that offered all employees a 75% tuition discount. I doubt I could have afforded to get an advanced degree on what I was making at the time without that benefit. Because of the discount, I managed to get a master's without any additional loans.

If it's not to personal, what are your two degrees in?

No problem:

My bachelor's is in physics.

My master's is in environmental science and engineering.

Excellent. I know you studied more than you may care to remember.

Very similar to mine. BS in chemical engineering. That was a lesson in humility. MS in environmental process engineering. That was a little easier.

Working on an MS in mechanical engineering. I am now older than several of the professors.

If you look at the bright-side Tony, the bureacracy of the DOE was able to ID a problem and then fix it (if the concept you are sharing is true). This tells me 2 things. Number one, that bureaucracies and government agencies can work. And that any solution to a problem should be 2 pronged. Cutting waste and solving the problem. It looks like the cut in interests rates paired with a sensible approach to collecting a debt happens to be working.

And once again, I find myself correcting Tony's problems with factual reality.

Remember that mandatory video that I mentioned having to watch in college about not defaulting on student loans? That video made it clear that if you default, the government will seize your tax refunds and garnish you wages.

That was in 1989. I guess those rules he describes aren't as new as he seems to think they are. At best, the DOE may have increased their enforcement of these rules.

So, after a pulling a figure on the default rate out of his rectal orifice, tony learns that the actual figure is only about 1/10 of his guess. His next lesson is that the initiatives he things are new actually date back to at least the first Bush administration.

Stay tuned, school is still in session.

But I'm left wondering, what is his point now? Nothing he's said has changed the fact that college is very expensive today. The rate of tuition increase continues to outpace inflation and most people now leave school saddled with substantial debt.

So what is the solution? Besides blaming anyone who takes out a student loan, that is.

tony, You make a good point. There are always many sides to an issue. I'm not so sure that I told people to go-to-h*** when I defaulted. I did pay. And my credit took many years to heal, which it did. I think some of it is immaturity, and some of it is economic reality. It all depends on the individual. But our system can giveth and taketh away. Good points. Responsibility and paying our debts are very important aspects of being a productive citizen.

Except, tony, that your statement didn't show the "other side" of the issue that Flavia initially reported on: That a computer glitch apparently caused many students to be overcharged on their loan payments. Students who were diligently making their payments were allegedly made to pay more than they actually owed. That isn't the fault of the tiny minority who defaulted on their loans. That's a mistake that the government made, which means, yes, they were at fault.

So what then is the point of bringing up the default rate (which you, no Flavia, were the first to bring into this discussion)? Other than, of course, to attack "liberals like Flavia"?

Den,

I think that tony did add to the discussion, bringing up personal responsibility, albeit in his own personal way. This site is good because it offers a many sided discussion, and most of the time, although their delivery is not polished, it is from the heart and can add. Personally, I do not care for personal attacks and generalizations, but my conservative brothers do make some good points.

...but I do not agree that bashing Bush is the sole purpose of the article...it may be a consequence, but it is not the purpose.

So, now you're an expert on what Flavia and I intend, tony? You can read our minds? Let's look at those pesky facts, shall we?

First of all, she mentions the overcharges were caused by a computer glitch in the first paragraph, not at the end of her blog, so right off the bat, you're misrepresenting what was written.

Second, does she mention Bush or any other administration official by name? Umm, no. She even imply that this is the fault of the current administration. Again, no. In fact, she mentions that the glitch goes back a decade, which extends into the Clinton administration. If anything, the fact that the glitch is being corrected now is a credit to the Bush administration.

Third, did I mention Bush at all? Again, no. Did I say anything in this thread that could possibly be construed as a bash on Bush? Again, no.

Fourth, who was the first person to bring up the issue of "bashing" the administration or throwing blame at someone over the costs of college? That would be you.

So, the person who is not being honest here is you, tony. The person who came to this blog for the sole purpose of engaging in bashing is you, tony. The person who misterpresenting or leaving out pertinent facts so as to engage in bashing is you, tony.

Now, tony, be honest and admit that your only purpose in posting here is to bash "liberals like Flavia".

School is out. You get an F in honesty, an F in logic, and an F in factual analysis.

Ugh, should be "person who is misrepresenting or leaving out. . ."

Balla, when tony makes a post that is more than just a personal attack, I'll consider him to have contributed something to this discussion. I may disagree with Todd more often than not, but he at least engages in intelligent discussion.

I noticed that. I like the intelligent convo here. I am just trying to get what I can. tony may just be having a very bad day.

I think it is aimed at the DOE. They do serve as an agency of the executive branch, but bureaucracies can and do have much rulemaking power and use it, not always following the lead of the chief executive. It could have happened under Clinton too and there were probably many instances of bureaucratic snafus under all admins, regardless of party affiliation. tony, I know a little of bureaucracies. I promise I will be there to point out the glitches in a dem admin as will Flavia will too. Promise.

Sorry, tony, but just because you imagine something, doesn't make it true. First, you have to be right about something, anything.

Welcome to Owned. Population: You.

I thank you for the information that was not covered nationally by so called journalist that have college degrees (i guess they all got free rides one way or the other and dont care). It is my opinion that making college education affordable is the only way to keep the middle class.
To achieve meritocracy others things must be changed. Like complete separation of church and state (i.e. campaign trails should not be fought in the mega churhes of the bible belt example justice sunday ect). I do say religion is important in the developement of moral values but that can even be disproved by many recent events including preist and evagelist. How about this, Dont vote for the president based on his political affiliation, rather, vote on his performance thus far in life( this isnt picking your favorite baseball team ints the leader of the free world. How many out there ever voted outside there party?). If you cant run a business you cant run the country! If you dont get good grades in school your probably not going to do a good job running the country! Most of all, lobyist need to be thrown out and corporations need to be exsponged from the pockets of senators and reps alike.

Makes sense to me.

RD

That is a large return. I would also imagine that if a kid is in college, he is not in prison.

So mojoe is saying that mexico is better than the USA?!

Several young people I know have shifted their college loans to regular credit cards so they could declare themselves bankrupt after getting the diploma. The idea seems bright, because young people starting their careers with "unmanageable debt" would not be able to undertake further debt for a decent reliable car (it doesn't have to be new but it should be expected to start every day) and perhaps marry and get a decent apartment or even get a mortgage for at least six or seven years anyway.
However, many institutions discriminate against those who declare bankruptcy. Employers will not hire people who have bankruptcies in management or in positions where money is sensitive, and landlords will not rent apartments to persons with bankruptcy on their credit reports.

Ann. That strikes me as immoral.

Doesn't the government do that?

One way to make college affordable and therefore cut the potential debt of graduates would be to cut the ridiculous salaries and benefits paid to tenured faculty. Many of them don't even teach any longer but we get burdened with debt to support their high lifestyles.