Up to their eyeballs in debt

[+ stevenkesslar]

Interesting study on students who are up to their eyeballs in debt:

 

https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/9575-understanding-student-loan-debt/UnderstandingStudentLoanDebt%208.31.33212a52357948928decb0e983c7d97c.pdf

 

An excerpt:

 

For the youngest students, those ages 16 to 19, the gap between reasonable debt and what they expect to borrow is considerably higher than for their older peers. On average, they believe that approximately $19,500 is a reasonable amount to borrow for four years of college. And yet, those who plan to borrow expect to go almost $33,000 in debt for their degree. In comparison, 20 to 40 year olds who believe on average that borrowing $15,000 to $18,000 is reasonable expect to take out $17,000 to $23,000 on average (See Table 1). This difference between age groups may partly be due to younger students applying to four-year schools and attending expensive residential campuses. Older students are more likely to be working and could be exploring community colleges or shorter-term credentials that cost less.

As former US Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander just wrote in the WSJ:

 

"Are students borrowing too much? The College Board reports that a student who graduates from a four-year institution carries, on average, a debt of about $27,000. This is the same amount of the average new car loan, according to information-services company Experian Automotive. The total amount of outstanding student loans is $1.2 trillion. The total amount of auto loans outstanding in the U.S. is $950 billion.

 

But a student loan is a lot better investment. Cars depreciate. College degrees appreciate. The College Board estimates that a four-year degree will increase an individual's lifetime earnings by $1 million, on average."

 

So student perception is actually roughly in line with reality. Going to college ain't cheap. It is wise.

 

Given that our friends at DHS are doing things that will make it harder for young men (and women) to use escorting to pay their college tuition, if not actually turn them into felons, I thought these numbers were interesting.

[Wolfer]

The cost of college in the US has always boggled my mind... In Belgium all colleges cost around 400-500 euro for one year of tuition. But only if you have two working parents, otherwhise the goverment chips in.

 

For example, cause we had just our mom raising us, a year of college only cost me 90 euro to enroll.

[+ WilliamM]

Do students in Belgium have to pass a tough exam to qualify for the tuition costs in your post, or is it available to every student in the country?

[marylander1940]

This isn't directly on this subject but it's good to highlight the level of hypocrisy in our politics when it comes to this issue.

 

"When Representative Paul Ryan was 16 years old , tragedy struck his family. His 55 year old father had passed away from a heart attack. Young Paul Ryan found his father’s lifeless body and was burdened by the fact that he had to tell his mother and siblings of this horrible situation.

 

After his father’s passing, young Paul Ryan started collecting social security benefits until the age of 18 years old. He took this benefit and saved it for his college education. Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people. Without this benefit, his mother would have had to make even tougher decisions and Representative Paul Ryan may not have been able to pay for his college education. This social contract lifted him and his entire family out of a tough situation/"

 

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/04/19/paul-ryan-social-security.html

 

Just one more American using the ladder big government gave him go to up in life and now trying to set it on fire because it ain't fair for others and doesn't make sense for his budget.

[+ WilliamM]

My brother is older than Paul Ryan. My father died under the same circimstance. My memory is that my brother received social security benefits until the age of 21, not 18. I have a good memory of family circumstances. The only difference may be that my father and brother lived in Massachusetts, but my understand is that these are federal benefits, not state benefits.

[OneFinger]

IMHO, the student loan process is just another way for people to enslave themselves to government. The government will loan you $500K to get a degree in underwater basket weaving. And, after getting that degree and not being able to find a job, that loan cannot be dismissed thru bankruptcy. I firmly believe that debt is one of the ways the government keeps control of the people.

 

I was lucky enough to complete a degree without incurring debt. But, it wasn't easy.

[+ purplekow]

IMHO, the student loan process is just another way for people to enslave themselves to government. The government will loan you $500K to get a degree in underwater basket weaving. And, after getting that degree and not being able to find a job, that loan cannot be dismissed thru bankruptcy. I firmly believe that debt is one of the ways the government keeps control of the people.

 

I was lucky enough to complete a degree without incurring debt. But, it wasn't easy.

I was able to pay off my debt for schooling in one year after college. I worked 2 full time jobs and 1 part time job and of course my escorting (a full $20 there). I earned about $14000 that year and paid off $6000 in loans and supported myself. I was not lucky enough to be the child or the elite or white collar or even blue collar. My father was a tattered collar but he was there and there was roof and plenty of pasta.

It took me two years to pay off my medical school bills. I did my residency on call every 2 or 3 nights and then did moonlighting on the evenings I was not working. There was not a lot of fun at that time. The debt was paid and I was ready to face life, debt free and prepared to live a life in which I bought things I needed and borrowed for things I wanted only when I had a reasonable plan as to how to pay it back..

If you are going to borrow money, you should have a plan to pay it back. No one forces students to take loans. No one forces them to do basket weaving. If people are enslaved by debt, for the most part, it is because they incurred the debt without a realistic plan as to how to pay it back. If they need to take loans in order to achieve their goals, then they should have an idea of how they are going to pay it back.

In the US, people borrow and pay interest to credit card companies and for car loans and for all manner of debt. Most people want more than they can afford and do not have the restraint to do without. My flip phone was good enough for me for 12 years, how many phones would you envision the average student going through in 12 years and of course that is just the tip of the iceberg, I am not discounting people who wind up in debt due to unfortunate health issues, personal tragedies or truly unavoidable circumstance, but most debt in the US is voluntary and based on conspicuous consumption.

So do not blame the government, the society or the education system, put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the people who took the loans and were not prepared to pay them back

[+ stevenkesslar]

IMHO, the student loan process is just another way for people to enslave themselves to government. The government will loan you $500K to get a degree in underwater basket weaving. And, after getting that degree and not being able to find a job, that loan cannot be dismissed thru bankruptcy. I firmly believe that debt is one of the ways the government keeps control of the people.

 

I was lucky enough to complete a degree without incurring debt. But, it wasn't easy.

 

I'd actually be a hardass on it. Like giving people financial incentives to study things that would likely result in higher incomes. How you do that would be very tricky in practice. But it doesn't make sense to me to help people set themselves up for bankruptcy, which in some cases you could argue the government is doing.

 

How about the opposite? What Lamar Alexander is saying is that, on average, a 4 year degree is worth $1 million extra over a lifetime. Would you thus agree that the government is trying to remove the shackles of ignorance and debt, and turn the average American (that goes to college) into a millionaire?

[american executive]

Hey friends:

 

Something to think about when talking about the high cost of colleges is that most colleges are in fact, terrible business operations. I know of professors who are making $120K+ who are actually teaching two courses per week. They push their "lab"sessions and work onto teaching assistants and therefore are actually in front of the students for about two hours per week. One professor I know pushes the scheduling staff to schedule his two 45 minutes lectures onto the same day. The result? He is actually on campus one day per week.

 

Tenur? At most of the Ivys, research universites and major institutions tenur become an accepted form getting away with very little work. I know a professor who will be spending a one-year paid sabaatical in Europe. His expertise is American studies! I know an institution who tells their students that if a class is going to be canceled the professor will "try" to put a note on the door or perhaps send a secretary. If not, just wait 15 minutes and then leave.

 

I know several professors who have these one or two day schedules on a full time salary. Since they teach at a "research" university they are able to accept "research" contracts from corporations. The result; they work on the corporate contracts, recieve a six-figure "reseach" grant and funds for more teaching assistants who cover their lab classes. It looks great for the university to have these "top scholars" but in all other business they would be clearly double-dipping.

 

The snooty universities pamper themselves with high salaries, benefits, perks, vacations galore, research time, etc. Add to this the seven figure salary and packages of college presidents and executives, and it makes for a crummy business model. A president driven in a limo? Sure, I know one. A president who purchased a luxury condo to "entertain" high donors; but that condo was 30 minutes from the actual campus? Sure, I know him too.

 

Listen - prestige costs. But, who said education is about prestige? Students need solid, pracitcal education. They need real world material to make a difference in their lives. How about this course at a very prestigous, highly competitve university: Theory and History of Video Games. Really? Would you really care if your doctor, lawyer, therapist, etc. has a sense of the theory and history of video games? But, the they teach it, students take it and everyone pays.

 

All institutions participate in Title IV financial aid programs. Most receive funding from local, state and federal programs. Most recieve private foundation money, grants, and have substantial endowmennts, some in the billions, generating interest. And then, there is tuition. The parents pay. The students pay for years. We pay as part of our tax dollars.

 

A simple solution that will probably never happen: Make everyone work (truly work) 40 hours a week. Teach practical material. Engage students as customers not as "you are lucky to have been accepted to this institution" . Prestigage cost. Probably 50% of it is bullshit and worthless to the user and society as a whole.

[+ WilliamM]

If you are going to borrow money, you should have a plan to pay it back. No one forces students to take loans. No one forces them to do basket weaving. If people are enslaved by debt, for the most part, it is because they incurred the debt without a realistic plan as to how to pay it back. If they need to take loans in order to achieve their goals, then they should have an idea of how they are going to pay it back.

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/us-news-ranks-best-colleges

 

Very timely because US News and World Report just released the 2015 rankings and costs of universities and liberal art colleges. I do not understand your basket waving comment; it's totally out of place when you look at the costs of just a year at most of the private and public universities in the top 30/50 as well as the leading private liberal arts colleges.

 

I understand why you did not mentioned the universities you attended, but why not the years? Did you not try to get into the very best medical school you possibly could? My conclusions have to be that you were in college and medical school when it was difficult, but not impossible, to follow a debt repayment plan. And I give you much credit for sticking to the plan. Would you have been able to do it today when most top private universities charge at least $50,000 a year?

 

Students do receive scholarships. I did myself. But I owed about $4,000 when I graduated in 1967 from a private university and a public grad school. My salary in my first job in 1970 (after several years in the military) was about &9,500, a decent starting salary back then. Yet, it still took me the entire alloted time to pay back the college loans.

 

College tuition is way out of line, but students are still applying. The rejection rate for Ivy League school is about 90% of applicants -- a little unfair because many people apply to several Ivy League schools plus Stanford, MIT and the University of Chicago.

 

PK: To be blunt, you are seeking a pat on the back while providing very little information. Clearly, you would try to gain admission to the best public university you could. But, what is step two?

[+ WilliamM]

Something to think about when talking about the high cost of colleges is that most colleges are in fact, terrible business operations. I know of professors who are making $120K+ who are actually teaching two courses per week. They push their "lab"sessions and work onto teaching assistants and therefore are actually in front of the students for about two hours per week. One professor I know pushes the scheduling staff to schedule his two 45 minutes lectures onto the same day. The result? He is actually on campus one day per week.

 

You have failed to mention that many professors who teach at universities with graduate programs would prefer not to have TAs and do all the teaching themselves. Further, professors have students who are pursuing graduate degrees. They are doing far more than just teaching a few classes a week.

 

Yes, some professors take advantage, but very few when I was in graduate school. If you do the job correctly, there's very little free time except on weekends.

[rvwnsd]

IMHO, the student loan process is just another way for people to enslave themselves to government. The government will loan you $500K to get a degree in underwater basket weaving. And, after getting that degree and not being able to find a job, that loan cannot be dismissed thru bankruptcy. I firmly believe that debt is one of the ways the government keeps control of the people.

 

I was lucky enough to complete a degree without incurring debt. But, it wasn't easy.

 

 

You statement is not accurate. There are two types of student loans: Federal and Private. The maximum an undergraduate student may borrow under the Federal student loan program is $31K for dependent students and $57.5K for independent students. The maximum a graduate student may borrow (including undergraduate loans) is $138.5K. Federal student loans are eligible for deferment if the student is unable to make the loan payments. Deferment means the student can suspend making payments for a fixed amount of time due to a number of factors, including unemployment and illness.

 

If you would like to read the facts of the Federal student loan program, please refer to the DOE's website here:

 

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized#how-much

 

Private student loans are a free-for-all. THAT's how students get in over their heads in debt.

[Wolfer]

Do students in Belgium have to pass a tough exam to qualify for the tuition costs in your post, or is it available to every student in the country?

No, it's available to every student that's a citizen of Belgium (and maybe even the European Union, I think). The amount you have to pay is dependent on the family's total income. When it falls below certain thresholds, the goverment will cover a larger part of the tuition fee. So if you, for example have two parents that work full time, the tuition fee will be higher than say, for a single mom. But even if the family's income is over the highest threshold, I think tuition fee's are always capped at around 500-600 euro.

[+ honcho]

 

WilliamM said: ↑

Do students in Belgium have to pass a tough exam to qualify for the tuition costs in your post, or is it available to every student in the country?

 

No, it's available to every student that's a citizen of Belgium (and maybe even the European Union, I think). The amount you have to pay is dependent on the family's total income.

 

I have the impression that European students have to pass a tough exam to get into a university at all,

and that there are far fewer "diploma mills" in the EU than there are in the US.

[+ stevenkesslar]

A simple solution that will probably never happen: Make everyone work (truly work) 40 hours a week. Teach practical material. Engage students as customers not as "you are lucky to have been accepted to this institution" . Prestigage cost. Probably 50% of it is bullshit and worthless to the user and society as a whole.

 

As amusing anecdotes, I agree with everything you say. One of my brothers and his wife are university professors, and they don't try to hide the fact that they have very cozy lives. She took a one year sabbatical and did research on, if I recall write, pot smoking. Actually, she has a wonderful sense of self-deprecating humor about the whole situation. My brother tends to take it all more seriously. (Hmm, guess it runs in the family). He thinks we're killing the goose that lays the golden egg by starving academia.

 

Once you get beyond anecdotes, the argument that we have lazy tenured professors teaching a bunch of crap gets weaker.

 

The first thing that jumps out at me is what Lamar Alexander focuses on: if colleges and professors suck, why does a college degree get you $1 million in additional income? Something must be going right in academia to generate results like that.

 

I'm actually getting sick of hearing about the "shrinking" middle class. Here's a set of graphs the New York Times put out earlier this year that I think is just really weak logic:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html

 

If you look at the first set of charts, the thing that seems glaringly obvious is that the reason the middle class is "shrinking (from 53 % in 1967 to 43 % in 2013) is because the upper class is growing (7 % in 1967 to 22 % in 2013). How could that possibly be bad? I've compared data sets, and at least until about 2000 the percentage of Americans that were upper income roughly correlated with the percentage of Americans that were college graduates.

 

It does seem like we hit a stall starting around 2000. But if you look at the charts at the bottom, my best guess is that at least part of the problem is that more people are going to college then ever before, and partly that means that more college students have average to marginal skills. It used to be that only the "best and brightest" even went to college. So it makes sense to me that while college might have been a ticket to affluence decades ago, today for a lot of people it may only be a ticket to the middle class. The percentage of people that are college graduates that are low-income is small, and has been more or less constant for decades.

 

None of this says says anything directly about professors, but if college was mostly a waste of time, I just don't think it would generate such a large, and growing, wage differential.

 

The other thing that did surprise me is that for decades there has been a steady decline in the number of tenured professors:

 

http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AAUP-Trends-in-Instructional-StaffEmploment-Status-75-2009.jpg

 

Tenured and tenure-track faculty went from 45 % o faculty in 1975 to about 25 % in 2009. Part-time faculty skyrocketed.

 

Most of this change occurred by 2000. What's interesting about that is if you compare the staff composition chart to the NYT incomes charts, it seems like in the 70's, 80's, and 90's there was a gradual shift away from tenure, but there is no clear evidence that it had a negative impact on graduation rates, or rising affluence. Even though there was less tenure, we had more college graduates, and they were more affluent than ever.

 

To me, mostly it seems like the glass looks way more half full than it does half empty.

[+ purplekow]

Judging from the high schoolers that I see, most are going on to college because they have nothing else to do and the large majority are staying home and going to the local community college. I get the brochure from there in the mail at the change of every semester and most of the courses seem to me to be remedial in nature. There are introductory course to the sciences and basic reading and writing courses. Perhaps times have changed, but there do not seem to be the kinds of courses in English and Political Science and other liberal arts fields that were available to me when I was a freshman or sophomore. The teens i speak to do not have much enthusiasm for school or at least do not project that in the conversations we have. Occasional a beacon of light will sprout our from the doom and gloom of the teenage population and when that happens it restores my faith, for a little bit.

[Wolfer]

I have the impression that European students have to pass a tough exam to get into a university at all,

and that there are far fewer "diploma mills" in the EU than there are in the US.

Many University courses do have entrance exams, but these are specifically to get into that particular course and have nothing to do with receiving benefits on your tuition fee. Well, I say many... The one's that do are often for medicine, music, the arts, these have entrance exams. But if you study something broader like journalism or something, these don't have entrance exams.

[+ stevenkesslar]

You could flip the argument I made above around and argue that it's precisely because we are starving academia and getting rid of tenured professors that we face growing problems. It is definitely the case that at places like Harvard, the professors earn the most, tenure is sacred, students pay the most in tuition, they almost all graduate, and they do extremely well after graduation. For-profit colleges do the opposite: even though some students still pay a lot, some of them have very high drop out rates, and they rely on non-tenured faculty, often working part-time.

 

To me the real driver is not professors, its students. Mostly the data suggest that being a professor is a relatively well paying job, and always has been. I think that makes sense, if we value education as a society, which we should. The real challenge we face is that as more and more students go to college, they are simply more "average." The US is not Lake Wobegon, where every child is "above average." Meanwhile, there is at least some reason to think that that the job market is tougher to crack than ever before. That's not true for graduates with STEM degrees moving to West Coast cities, where rents and home prices are skyrocketing. But it is true for the mythical college graduate in basket weaving who can only get a job as a barista at Starbucks.

 

That's why I liked what PK said, that the responsibility should fall on students. In his words, "do not blame the government, the society or the education system, put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the people who took the loans and were not prepared to pay them back." A more positive way of saying it is that I think there needs to be a new social contract, that basically says if you go to school, study subjects that relate to what the workforce needs, and get a job, we will do everything we can to guarantee that you come out whole. That doesn't preclude getting a liberal arts education, like I did. It doesn't preclude taking nutty classes in things like "protest politics" from radical professors like Paul Wellstone, that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the real issues of the day. (I hope the sarcasm is obvious). The good news is that if you are talking about a four year degree, especially, you can mostly have your cake and eat it, too. Nothing suggests to me that the liberal arts are dying. If anything, as somebody noted already, competition to get into the best liberal arts school is fiercer than ever.

[+ WilliamM]

Judging from the high schoolers that I see, most are going on to college because they have nothing else to do and the large majority are staying home and going to the local community college. I get the brochure from there in the mail at the change of every semester and most of the courses seem to me to be remedial in nature. There are introductory course to the sciences and basic reading and writing courses. Perhaps times have changed, but there do not seem to be the kinds of courses in English and Political Science and other liberal arts fields that were available to me when I was a freshman or sophomore. The teens i speak to do not have much enthusiasm for school or at least do not project that in the conversations we have. Occasional a beacon of light will sprout our from the doom and gloom of the teenage population and when that happens it restores my faith, for a little bit.

 

PK, you attended medical school, so you know that there are many fine state universities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York. You can easily search the Rutgers and Penn St. websites to check the various departments and courses offered. I live near Philadelphia Community College. Over the years, I have seen dozens of students studying in the nearby city lbrary and Starbucks. They seem to take education very seriously. Not everyone wants to attend college, or, in some cases, right out of high school.

 

I believe you live at the Jersey shore. If the only option is cummunity college and living at home, I understand the gloom for some students. I was stationed at Fort Dix in the 1960s and in my year there drove to Rutgers and Philadelphis to college-related events. O.k.. so I get five stars, that's not the point. There are opportunities for the kids you talk with, and I surprised you seem to not mention those oppostunities to them.

[Str8boyluvr]

I agree with both of PK's posts. Perhaps schools and parents aren't teaching kids how to save, plan, budget and learn to live within their means. Perhaps kids know better but don't care and think nothing bad will happen. I had student loans for my undergrad degree and paid them off on my own by working when everyone was out partying. I put myself on an extremely tight budget. I was a bit smarter when it came to the grad degree. I planned well in advance, figured out the costs and saved enough money plus worked enough to not require financial aid of any kind and finished debt free. Also made me take my education even more serious because of the sacrificies I made to finance it.

 

I'm a huge fan of education and taking classes...at any age, be it towards a degree, certificate or just fun. Education opens so many doors. On the other hand I don't think we should just give it away for free. People generally don't invest much of themselves when it doesn't hit them in the wallet to some extent. And that dilutes the learning experience for those who have a fire in their belly to improve themselves.

 

So make kids pay for college but as PK said, let's make it so they can have a plan to pay it back and they don't get underwater at such a young age.

[+ WilliamM]

I agree with both of PK's posts. Perhaps schools and parents aren't teaching kids how to save, plan, budget and learn to live within their means. Perhaps kids know better but don't care and think nothing bad will happen. I had student loans for my undergrad degree and paid them off on my own by working when everyone was out partying. I put myself on an extremely tight budget. I was a bit smarter when it came to the grad degree. I planned well in advance, figured out the costs and saved enough money plus worked enough to not require financial aid of any kind and finished debt free. Also made me take my education even more serious because of the sacrificies I made to finance it.

 

I'm a huge fan of education and taking classes...at any age, be it towards a degree, certificate or just fun. Education opens so many doors. On the other hand I don't think we should just give it away for free. People generally don't invest much of themselves when it doesn't hit them in the wallet to some extent. And that dilutes the learning experience for those who have a fire in their belly to improve themselves.

 

Just like PurpleKow, you give very little information as to when you attended college and grad school.

 

I posted a link above to last week's 2015 U.S. News and World Report's ranking of major universities.

 

Of the top 52 universities, please take note of the following:

 

Least expensive private university: Rice University (number 18 in the rankings): $42,253 tiution & fees

 

Least expensive public university: University of Florida (number 47 in the rankings): $6,313 tuition & fees

In State Only

 

I am not suggesting that students have to attend one of the top rated universities, but I was not seeing much lower tuition costs as I looked through the entire list yeaterday.

 

As far as students generally not investing as much of themselves when it does not hit them in the wallet, that's your opinion. I have never seen much evidence that it is true.

[+ purplekow]

If the only option is cummunity college and living at home, I understand the gloom for some students. I was stationed at Fort Dix in the 1960s and in my year there drove to Rutgers and Philadelphis to college-related events. O.k.. so I get five stars, that's not the point. There are opportunities for the kids you talk with, and I surprised you seem to not mention those oppostunities to them.

I think that I generally exceed the amount of counseling these students would usually receive from someone in my position, especially since I am not doing ongoing counseling and most of them I see sporadically. More to the point, there are people whose job it is to advise these students, school guidance counselors, career counselors and of course parents and family. The students or whom I speak, are going to college because they have nothing else to do. They have no plans. They have no desire to start at entry level positions and work their way up. They go to the community college while they figure out what they are going to do. Some pull it together but a large minority never graduate, many because they never wanted to be there in the first place but had no idea where to go.

[+ purplekow]

[quote="

 

As far as students generally not investing as much of themselves when it does not hit them in the wallet, that's your opinion. I have never seen much evidence that it is true.

 

Free advice is worth what you pay for it. I believe a free education may be worth slightly more than that, but for most, not much more.

[+ WilliamM]

Free advice is worth what you pay for it. I believe a free education may be worth slightly more than that, but for most, not much more.

 

I meant an eduction based on scolarships and a bit of part-time work, or parents who can pay. I have taken courses at three universities, two private and one public. Guess I am just more trusting than you, Gman.

 

And for your information, I started work cutting lawns when I was 14, and worked in super markets at age 16 through my junior and senior years in high school. Also worked during summers in college, and sometimes during the school year in college. I did get scolarships for college, but paid for part of grad school. I worked just as hard no matter who was paying.

 

Clearly, we strongly disagree.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I'm a huge fan of education and taking classes...at any age, be it towards a degree, certificate or just fun. Education opens so many doors. On the other hand I don't think we should just give it away for free. People generally don't invest much of themselves when it doesn't hit them in the wallet to some extent. And that dilutes the learning experience for those who have a fire in their belly to improve themselves.

 

To ground this in reality, here's more from the Lamar Alexander piece in the WSJ. Everything he wrote rung true to me, and everything he wrote actually encouraged me. I think the glass is way more half full than half empty, if that's possible.

 

"Public two year colleges, for example, are free or nearly free for low-income students. Nationally, community college tuition and fees average $3300 per year, according to the College Board. The annual federal Pell Grant for these students - which does not have to be paid back - also averages $3300.

 

At public four year colleges, tuition and fees average about $9000. At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, tuition and fees are $11,800. One third of its students have a Pell grant (up to $5,775, depending on financial need), and 98 % of instate freshman have a state Hope Scholarship, providing up to $3500 annually for freshman and sophomores and up to $4500 for juniors and seniors."

 

To me, this is the way the world should be. While I agree that everybody should have skin in the game, meaning they should pay money to go to school, the reality is that two year community colleges attract kids with relatively lower skill levels, who are more likely to drop out or fail. I don't have a problem with the fact that we "throw" $3000 down the drain trying to help them, knowing that many will "fail." What's the alternative? Tell them not to even try? What PK says feels right. Many of them may be adrift, and they may not be particularly motivated. But some of them will succeed, and I'd argue almost 100 % will learn something, even if it does little or no good. If none of them try, 100 % will fail.

 

What I wish we would do is focus efforts even more on job-related skills and trade preparation. Not for the people who ace the ACT or SAT - they are going to go to relatively elite colleges anyway, and many of them will focus on liberal arts and do well. But for the students who are "average." From what I can tell, a lot of good things are happening at the local level:

 

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/07/31/53479/high-school-students-flocking-to-community-college/

 

But as the article points out, more needs to be done. I'd be happy if we do things that help the most marginal students who can succeed prepare for jobs that make their lives easier, increase their income, and do it without putting them into a lot of debt.