• Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Similar thread on housing

Similar thread on precious metals

As any college student knows, getting a student loan is fairly easy. Just as getting loans for housing was easy back in the heyday of the housing bubble. Will the path of college loans be similar to the path of housing loans?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
I know Sewanee is one:

http://news.sewanee.edu/academics/2011/02/16/tuition-reduction/

A quick Google search turns up othe... (more)

stanolshefski (Jul. 02, 2012 @ 9:31p) |

Lol...

jkimcpa (Jul. 03, 2012 @ 12:34a) |

So many people on here give advice about student loans to posters, etc. You should all probably read this article:

http:/... (more)

unimeg (Jul. 03, 2012 @ 8:33a) |

  • Also categorized in:

you've missed the mark on your question. The better question to ask is whether there is a higher education bubble. Do we call the housing bubble a mortgage bubble? Like mortgages funded the housing bubble, student loans are funding the higher education bubble.

yes, there is clearly a higher education bubble. but whether there is a student loan bubble is a separate question that is trickier. i don't have enough info on default rates etc to say much in detail. sure there are $1T in loans out there but even though these hordes are paying ungodly amounts for worthless degrees, i'm guessing most of the loans are not bad bets. a lot of those basket weavers will either a) grind it out in a real job, b) get bailed out by daddy, or in true SHTF situation c) get bailed out by uncle (sam). likewise the banks will get bailed out - no chance they will be allowed to take losses on those loans.

anyways i see no hope for an end to either the higher education bubble or the black hole of govt subsidized college funding. the incentives are too powerful on all sides. it will only "pop" when our current society "pops" the big one

There will be a point where students simply never repay their student loans ...there's already income based repayment and ways to keep kicking the can down the road so it won't pop anytime soon

With tons of kids racking up six figures at undergrad alone , more for grad school , many will never pursue their field of study it's inevitable the bubble will pop. Just not now.

Once they make student loans dischargable in BK, the bubble will pop. And I'm willing to go so far as to say that future lenders will, for the most part, start overlooking BK's that involve only student loans.

The bigger question I guess is when? I'm going peg it between 3 and 7 years from now.

But who do you short to profit? The loan servicing banks just sell the loans to the Feds, or get a full guarantee so they can't lose money and lock in a nice profit margin. I guess some of the online diploma mills are funded mostly through excessive student borrowing, and with the crap employment situation these days they would really crash if the Feds pulled out their backstops. I know young people don't vote, but I can't see this type of "screw the students" reform happening in an election year, or even at all until is big enough the politicians can't ignore it.

SIS, they already made all of the provisions so folks don't have to pay back their loans in their entirety... take a job that allows you to pay the minimum for 10-20 years (depending on occupation/employer) and your remaining balance is forgiven.

Perhaps, if the job market improves, more employers will offer student loan reimbursements of some sort. If a company wants degree'd individuals and they want top talent, this would be an interesting perk. I don't know the tax implications, for the employer or the employee, however. Since so many offer tuition reimbursement, why not just offer student loan repayment at 50% of the tuition reimbursement limits based on corporate policy? This still creates an incentive for employees to further their education in order to use the full amount?

xerty, perhaps they put the screws to the universities that have been profiting from it? This includes ALL universities... no special exemptions for non-profits vs. for-profits, or private vs. public. I know a lot of people are quick to jump on the private for-profit schools, but the public schools have been increasing their tuition rates at a record clip and have huge endowments. Why do their endowments continue to balloon and tuition rates are drastically outpacing private schools? It's to the point where a student that goes to an affordable private school will do better in the equation than going to a public school.

What about offer a negotiated tuition reimbursement rate if you want to accept federal aid of any kind. If a university is hard hit enough from that, they will limit the amount of aid that they accept from any one individual. Then, when people have to pay from their checking and savings accounts or get private loans, perhaps they will be more prudent with their choices?

Of course, maybe the universities offer a much higher tuition once you max out your financial aid and this problem grows. Who knows.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   

With tons of kids racking up six figures at undergrad alone , more for grad school , many will never pursue their field of study it's inevitable the bubble will pop. Just not now.


And even those who do may never make enough to repay their loans

We have the best quality high education system in the world. Most of the rich in China send their children to American universities. The problem is kids with medium intelligence and below average work ethics pay full tuition but squander the opportunity to learn. All that does is their tuitions effectively subsidize those who do make good use of their college education. Ultimately, what is wrong with this?

It is trendy here to complain about student loans. But remember nothing is perfect. Be careful what you wish for. Making the loans dischargeble in bk will only result in sky high interest rates. If someone wants to party for 4 years with borrowed money he still can! Only those who pay back the loans feel the pain of high interest rates.

Its gonna depend if a Dem or Republican wins. Again, I'm not being political here. I feel with the Dems they want to give students options like income based repayment. I think a Republican feels the loan should be nondischargable even with bankrupcy.

Dus10, the public universities absolutely DO NOT have huge endowments.
The reason that public universities have been increasing tution so much is that the states no longer fund them at the rates they used to. While "State" schools received something around 75% of their funds from the state 30 years ago, now it is around 25% for many of them.

I work in higher education, and I really truly believe that the bubble is real and will pop when graduates stop paying back their loans. Graduates with $100,000+ in debt and a degree in Philosophy or English Literature is insane.

My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.

bigtimesaver3652 said:   Its gonna depend if a Dem or Republican wins. Again, I'm not being political here. I feel with the Dems they want to give students options like income based repayment. I think a Republican feels the loan should be nondischargable even with bankrupcy.

so forgiveness is not on the horizon like the housing loans...

Think about what student loans are. Massive amounts of unsecured credit being given to people with no credit history and no job. Will AMEX give you a 200k credit limit (at any Apr) at 18? Of course not. As soon as student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy, it gives lots of people the incentive to get as much education as they can, buy a house and max out all their credit cards on toys and then oops, file bankruptcy and keep all of that on the lenders dime. If you wouldn't do that exact thing to get well over 200k discharged then you're either a fool or a liar.

ProfitAfterRebates said:   Dus10, the public universities absolutely DO NOT have huge endowments.
The reason that public universities have been increasing tution so much is that the states no longer fund them at the rates they used to. While "State" schools received something around 75% of their funds from the state 30 years ago, now it is around 25% for many of them.

I work in higher education, and I really truly believe that the bubble is real and will pop when graduates stop paying back their loans. Graduates with $100,000+ in debt and a degree in Philosophy or English Literature is insane.

My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.

Public schools spend their money a lot in area not related to education. A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.

sensia said:   ProfitAfterRebates said:   Dus10, the public universities absolutely DO NOT have huge endowments.
The reason that public universities have been increasing tution so much is that the states no longer fund them at the rates they used to. While "State" schools received something around 75% of their funds from the state 30 years ago, now it is around 25% for many of them.

I work in higher education, and I really truly believe that the bubble is real and will pop when graduates stop paying back their loans. Graduates with $100,000+ in debt and a degree in Philosophy or English Literature is insane.

My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.

Public schools spend their money a lot in area not related to education. A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.


That really depends on the school. A lot of bigger public universities don't contribute any money to athletics, they are self supporting. And those athletics generate revenue for the school by attracting students and investment dollars. Not all schools are like this, but most schools in a large football conference are.

sensia said:   A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.

You may not have participated in collegiate athletics but I learned more about dicipline and hard work at 6:00 AM in the pool than I ever did in a classroom.

I do not think there is a bubble, but a transfer of assets/wealth from kids pursuing "soft" degrees to the "hard" degrees.

I really do not understand why a degree in theology or literature costs the same as a degree in engineering or business (at the same school)- shouldn't the cost of a degree reflect the earning potential. Also, don't the professors get paid less and the university have to maintain less overhead in terms of infrastructure in the "soft" areas?

The only way to stop the insanity would be to stop the guarantees behind these loans.

Would I be willing to load someone $40k to get an engineering degree from a state school. Sure.
Would I be willing to loan someone $200k to get a sociology degree from Harvard? Not on your life.

talljay said:   The only way to stop the insanity would be to stop the guarantees behind these loans.

Would I be willing to load someone $40k to get an engineering degree from a state school. Sure.
Would I be willing to loan someone $200k to get a sociology degree from Harvard? Not on your life.


Exactly, and this would help fix the unemployment problem, as it would strongly encourage college students to get real degrees, and not waste their time in college on non-productive degrees. I read a study that said that there a plenty of jobs available currently, but there are not enough qualified people to take them.

nycll said:   We have the best quality high education system in the world. Most of the rich in China send their children to American universities. The problem is kids with medium intelligence and below average work ethics pay full tuition but squander the opportunity to learn. All that does is their tuitions effectively subsidize those who do make good use of their college education. Ultimately, what is wrong with this?

Really? "Squander"? Kids are told from early on that college degree will get them better jobs. Just look at all the simplistic statistics being pushed out there on how having a college degree is better for you than not having one. Decision to go to college is made way before any of the applications are even being filled out. Yeah, no wonder it is "squandered" when the value proposition is all wrong to begin with.

The parallel to the housing bubble stays true here. It's part of "American Dream" to have own house, regardless of how little sense it makes in the grand scheme of things. And same for college degrees. Except that with education, the ideas gets pushed onto kids that are unlikely to know any better until their neck deep in crap that everyone claimed was good for them.

jeeves said:   I do not think there is a bubble, but a transfer of assets/wealth from kids pursuing "soft" degrees to the "hard" degrees.

I really do not understand why a degree in theology or literature costs the same as a degree in engineering or business (at the same school)- shouldn't the cost of a degree reflect the earning potential. Also, don't the professors get paid less and the university have to maintain less overhead in terms of infrastructure in the "soft" areas?


If you are a going to be talking about it in these terms, it is simply a transfer of assets/wealth from people that get their versus ones that do not. This hard/soft science b.s. is easy to talk about, but has little place outside of a geek comedy. My EE class had only 15% graduation rate (some flunked, others transferred to easier stuff) and it's pretty much typical for many programs. As Everyone is so bought into the "necessity" of a degree, that they end up trying to do things they simply are not equipped to do. Yet a competent plumber can be as rare as unicorn farts.

You can always bet on the better for-profit schools that have publicly-traded securities. There are many challenges with betting on a fall versus just betting in the favor of the good businesses. Over time, a business in the hands of good people will have good business results, even if a few years are bad while the industry goes through turmoil.

ProfitAfterRebates said:   Dus10, the public universities absolutely DO NOT have huge endowments.
The reason that public universities have been increasing tution so much is that the states no longer fund them at the rates they used to. While "State" schools received something around 75% of their funds from the state 30 years ago, now it is around 25% for many of them.

I work in higher education, and I really truly believe that the bubble is real and will pop when graduates stop paying back their loans. Graduates with $100,000+ in debt and a degree in Philosophy or English Literature is insane.

My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.


Really?

Here is a list on Wikipedia of institutions in the US by endowment. Quite a few of those schools are public universities, like Big Ten schools, Indiana University, Purdue University, and Ohio State University.

Why should the state's continue to provide funding at such high levels when schools like these have these large endowments?

As for these schools, I know that they do not represent all public schools. Perhaps those on the list should be considered for privatization by their respective states?

I certainly agree, however, that not everyone is ready or able for college. For my first semester, I went to the local community college and it was full of people that had issues the basics of life... things that I had down before I was ten years old. I would suspect that many of these folks got more money in Pell grants, alone, than was necessary to cover their tuition... free money for those types who wouldn't be doing anything productive anyhow.

Perhaps states should more strictly focus on the community college level. If folks want to continue on, other programs could certainly assist them. I know that many high schools are (and have been) promoting dual credit programs for upperclassmen so they can graduate with an associates, or very close thereto.

It will be interesting, to say the least. My eldest will be a freshman this coming school year, and we are definitely focusing on college preparation. My plan is for an associates at time of graduation. We will see.

ProfitAfterRebates said:   My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.

I definitely agree with this last part. When four-year colleges have to teach 000 level classes (instead of the 100 level classes one typically would start at) because so many students can't read/write on a high school level, and when those classes have to be taught by senior year undergraduates because there aren't enough actual professors/lecturers to go around...that seems like a sign that just MAYBE they're accepting too many students who are not prepared for the level of study...which, really, is just good for the college, because that's more tuition that kids have to pay (and thus the government has to loan out) to get them caught up and then get through the degree programs.

i think there will not be a big bubble most education loan cannot be discharged in bankruptcy . may be modification of loan terms .

manuvns said:   i think there will not be a big bubble most education loan cannot be discharged in bankruptcy . may be modification of loan terms .

How do you modify them? They are already at ridiculously low interest rates and that can even be mitigated by income based repayment. Even if the rate doubles in July, it will be ridiculously low for what is essentially unsecured debt.

Heck, what a lot of people do is just going back to school for graduate work so they can get in-school deferment and "improve" their prospects of employment. But, if they couldn't get employed before, what does a graduate degree really offer? Not anything, necessarily.

Another likely option is a big push for folks to go back to school for in-demand sectors, like healthcare. Many schools are offering one-year programs for individuals with a BS to become an RN. Also, healthcare jobs are part of the ten year forgiveness program, IIRC. So, there will likely be too many folks in healthcare and there will be a new group of people that can't get jobs. Central planning at its finest.

89transam said:   sensia said:   A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.

You may not have participated in collegiate athletics but I learned more about dicipline and hard work at 6:00 AM in the pool than I ever did in a classroom.


If you went to college to learn about "dicipline" and hard work you may have went for the wrong reason.

jeeves said:   I do not think there is a bubble, but a transfer of assets/wealth from kids pursuing "soft" degrees to the "hard" degrees.

I really do not understand why a degree in theology or literature costs the same as a degree in engineering or business (at the same school)- shouldn't the cost of a degree reflect the earning potential. Also, don't the professors get paid less and the university have to maintain less overhead in terms of infrastructure in the "soft" areas?


The literature students still have to eat and sleep somewhere. The lights cost the same. Lab fees are more expensive for engineering students but most of the knowledge is held in a book and taught in a lecture hall. Why should teaching out of an engineering book be more expensive than teaching out of a theater book? The real solution would be to allow loans for hard degrees (Math/sciences) and not allow loans for soft degrees. If someone wants to get that sociology degree they can pay for it out of pocket. The world does need ditch diggers.

sensia said:   ProfitAfterRebates said:   Dus10, the public universities absolutely DO NOT have huge endowments.
The reason that public universities have been increasing tution so much is that the states no longer fund them at the rates they used to. While "State" schools received something around 75% of their funds from the state 30 years ago, now it is around 25% for many of them.

I work in higher education, and I really truly believe that the bubble is real and will pop when graduates stop paying back their loans. Graduates with $100,000+ in debt and a degree in Philosophy or English Literature is insane.

My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.

Public schools spend their money a lot in area not related to education. A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.



And at some schools, like Nebraska, the athletic department funds the academic programs. Not all athletics are a drain on the school.

Yes, and it will pop if if employers start hiring people without college degrees for jobs which formerly required them, in significant numbers.

Or, it will pop when people start defaulting on them in massive numbers and lending funds dry up.

mwa423 said:   Think about what student loans are. Massive amounts of unsecured credit being given to people with no credit history and no job. Will AMEX give you a 200k credit limit (at any Apr) at 18? Of course not. As soon as student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy, it gives lots of people the incentive to get as much education as they can, buy a house and max out all their credit cards on toys and then oops, file bankruptcy and keep all of that on the lenders dime. If you wouldn't do that exact thing to get well over 200k discharged then you're either a fool or a liar.

Unsecured? Is that what you call a loan that is basically undischargable in bankruptcy and empowers the lender to extract a portion of your paycheck for your working life and you SS check in retirement?

jeeves said:   I do not think there is a bubble, but a transfer of assets/wealth from kids pursuing "soft" degrees to the "hard" degrees.

I really do not understand why a degree in theology or literature costs the same as a degree in engineering or business (at the same school)- shouldn't the cost of a degree reflect the earning potential. Also, don't the professors get paid less and the university have to maintain less overhead in terms of infrastructure in the "soft" areas?


Why would you charge based on earning potential rather than a combination of cost and demand? Law school and medical school are costly due to cost/demand, but it doesn't make sense to charge less to a student in a "soft" degree just because they *might* earn less. Steve Jobs audited a calligraphy class and died a billionaire and my friend who graduated with a EE degree at a good university decided to try make it as an actor.

Engineering professors at research universities bring in lots of grant money for the school which makes the departments more self supporting. You will pay to go to grad school as a sociology major but you will get paid a barely living wage if you work for a professor with a grant in an engineering department.

89transam said:   sensia said:   A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.

You may not have participated in collegiate athletics but I learned more about dicipline and hard work at 6:00 AM in the pool than I ever did in a classroom.


You're totally missing the point, it has nothing to do with your swimming experience. Read Buzz Bissinger's (Friday Night Lights) piece on banning college football - I think it was in Slate.

malicefairy said:   jeeves said:   I do not think there is a bubble, but a transfer of assets/wealth from kids pursuing "soft" degrees to the "hard" degrees.

I really do not understand why a degree in theology or literature costs the same as a degree in engineering or business (at the same school)- shouldn't the cost of a degree reflect the earning potential. Also, don't the professors get paid less and the university have to maintain less overhead in terms of infrastructure in the "soft" areas?


Why would you charge based on earning potential rather than a combination of cost and demand? Law school and medical school are costly due to cost/demand, but it doesn't make sense to charge less to a student in a "soft" degree just because they *might* earn less. Steve Jobs audited a calligraphy class and died a billionaire and my friend who graduated with a EE degree at a good university decided to try make it as an actor.

Engineering professors at research universities bring in lots of grant money for the school which makes the departments more self supporting. You will pay to go to grad school as a sociology major but you will get paid a barely living wage if you work for a professor with a grant in an engineering department.


Further, those literature and philosophy degrees are part of departments that the schools HAVE to have anyway - every school requires that students take some kind of philosophy class (logic/critical thinking, whatever they want to call it), and the English departments get hobbled by having to teach more and more remedial courses - my experience was that actual English majors basically get neglected because instructors are spread so thin teaching the "intro to the English language" classes - as many as three a semester, with 50+ students each.

What makes more sense to me would be for private student loan companies to operate more along the lines that malicefairy suggests - "Okay, women's studies major, you're not likely to earn as much as engineering student over there, so we're not willing to loan you as much money. Sorry." As a spouse, I'm much more comfortable with the idea of $30k in student loans by the time hubby is done with his biology master's than I would be if it were for a master's in English or history or what have you, and I can only imagine that any private loan company would feel the same way.

nycll said:   We have the best quality high education system in the world. Most of the rich in China send their children to American universities. The problem is kids with medium intelligence and below average work ethics pay full tuition but squander the opportunity to learn. All that does is their tuitions effectively subsidize those who do make good use of their college education. Ultimately, what is wrong with this?
We do not have the best quality education system in the world. Anyone who claims it is is simply delusional. Our college and university system is tailored to separate fools from the their money. Since the system is optimized for entering college being a fool with "I'm special. Mom and dad said so. And so did the school where I went. Pay no attention to me not being able to do long division, I wrote a thirty page essay on the light of a transsexual agonizing to choose between 'M' and 'F' bathroom", those that are not fools can easily benefit from such system. That's the reason why well off foreigners send their children to American universities.

For the $40k/year a foreigner gets 4 years in the US not only to study but develop the contacts and hopefully create a way for him or her to be able to stay should the person want to. These are the people that populate Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Comp Sci departments, etc. Not only did that person took useful classes but he or she did it while living in another country, which by itself is a very interesting and extremely useful skill set. These are the people that we tend to talk about when we talk about excellency of the American education system.

On the other hand, little snowflake Jenni spends $40k/year to study Sociology ("i want to study OWS movement"), Victorian Literature ( does she even know that last year there were ZERO openings for assistant professors with that specialization? ) or women's studies. Four years later, she has 160k of new debt and a prospect of at best getting a job at Starbucks. Jenni the Snowflake is the example of the majority of students in US colleges.

bluegreenturtle said:   89transam said:   sensia said:   A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.

You may not have participated in collegiate athletics but I learned more about dicipline and hard work at 6:00 AM in the pool than I ever did in a classroom.


You're totally missing the point, it has nothing to do with your swimming experience. Read Buzz Bissinger's (Friday Night Lights) piece on banning college football - I think it was in Slate.
It was in WSJ

Dus10 said:   manuvns said:   i think there will not be a big bubble most education loan cannot be discharged in bankruptcy . may be modification of loan terms .

How do you modify them? They are already at ridiculously low interest rates and that can even be mitigated by income based repayment. Even if the rate doubles in July, it will be ridiculously low for what is essentially unsecured debt.



They are not at ridiculously low interest rates, even at 3.4%. They are not "essentially unsecured debt". Unsecured debts have little to no recourse in bankruptcy. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy and don't have any risk associated with the underlying collateral value fluctuations.

For this reason, I believe there will not be a bubble associated with student loans. I believe it will be a future cash flow issue and will affect other areas in the economy - mostly housing. For many borrowers, the debt amounts to a mortgage on a nice house in most parts of the country. They'll be taking the full 25 years to pay it off. They won't have the cash flow to qualify for a mortgage. I don't see housing prices growing any time soon unless wages increase.

I'm also betting gifts back to the educational institution will drop. Endowment growth will slow.

Must...not...read...these...threads...on FW. So much life ignorance.

kdbrich said:   sensia said:   ProfitAfterRebates said:   Dus10, the public universities absolutely DO NOT have huge endowments.
The reason that public universities have been increasing tution so much is that the states no longer fund them at the rates they used to. While "State" schools received something around 75% of their funds from the state 30 years ago, now it is around 25% for many of them.

I work in higher education, and I really truly believe that the bubble is real and will pop when graduates stop paying back their loans. Graduates with $100,000+ in debt and a degree in Philosophy or English Literature is insane.

My favorite quote is from Caddyshack: "The world need ditch diggers too." Not everyone belongs in college, not everyone needs to go to college to earn a good living, and many students who get into college are not prepared and have no business being there. But because universities are a business, they accept students that they shouldn't.

Public schools spend their money a lot in area not related to education. A huge chunk goes to athletics departments for no good reason.



And at some schools, like Nebraska, the athletic department funds the academic programs. Not all athletics are a drain on the school.


If you look at an athletic program with the jaundiced eye of a certified fraud examiner, none of the athletic programs of even the richest schools like the University of Texas break even. First deduct all the alumni gifts/donations to the programs. That takes you down to maybe 15 schools nationwide that break even across the entire program. Second charge full costs not subsidized costs for teaching, housing, meals, and university services. Then charge full costs for staff, facility maintenance and operation, medical, retirement, travel, and overhead expenses. Next subtract contributions by athletes who are partial scholarships, that is a hidden subsidy. Then add full costs of the rest of your Title IX programs. Under those accounting guidelines the University of Texas doesn't quite break even. They are the richest athletic program in the country.

Now let's look at how wasted those resources are. My particular university graduates 93% of all scholarship athletes in 5 years. Worst program is football which is 87.5%. There are only a couple of other programs nationwide that can hit those marks. It has also done something no other athletic program has ever done. It has produced a Nobel laureate. It also produced a quarterback that won NFL championships and he was also a full professor and head of the Mathematics Dept at Yale. That is a lot better return on investment for the long term good of our country than almost any other school that has won an NCAA national championship in major sports, yet compared to the regular program it is a pretty poor return on investment. I would guess that at almost every other institution you are not going to hit those benchmarks for all the billions of dollars spent(AND WASTED) on athletics. College athletics have become like bread and circuses in ancient Rome.

We have become a society like Rome in decline that over invests in bread and circuses and under invests in education. We subsidize research and development and we need to return to the Eisenhower levels of investment in education. Back then alumni gits to the athletic departments were not tax deductible. And yes I am one of the Sputnik kids.

Skipping 182 Messages...
So many people on here give advice about student loans to posters, etc. You should all probably read this article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-no-more-grac...

The long and short is that there will be no more subsidized loans for grad students starting this fall and all students, undergrad & grad, lose their 6 month post graduation grace period. They did pass a one year extension of the 3.4% interest rate, but there's no way that makes up for these changes. One step forward, two steps back.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014