College bubble and housing bubble

[CardiffBaseball]

Here in Fla. tuition is cheap. Probably because the quality is poorer in general although Florida is up and coming. Here in Orlando UCF is really growing and starting to get much more choosy since demand is up. Both schools are somewhere around 5k for tuition. UCF is 6 miles away however. Also we have this Bright Futures program which should allow both of my kids to qualify for a nice break.

Lastly we are seriously looking at exploiting their baseball skills to get a little extra money. A lot can change, but with a little work the 10th grader will have some interest as his coach has told me he’s got a lot of the tools needed. I am actually thinking of having him start JUCO if that happens because they are not as restrictive on baseball scholarship money as the NCAA is. Between Bright Futures and baseball money we might not have to pay too much for a couple of years. Now I will say he’s going to have to work hard, no guarantees, but the things are definitely looking good on that front. I just don’t know how hard he wants to push.

I don’t have squat saved up but we might be in a position to simply pay out of pocket (assuming we remain employed). I really don’t want the kids paying forever like we are.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]First off, what’s the chances of a HS graduate being able to save enough money to pay for 2 years of college? Secondly, with student loan rates being so low and students don’t have to pay them off until they finish their school, why not get the loan?…[/quote]

AN, if they go to community college for the first two years, it only costs $26 per credit hour. YES, a student can save that amount in HS if their parents are strapped. They may even qualify for a fee waiver! A student loan entraps their future. All kinds of things happen after college. The decisions the student may want to make (in the prime time of their lives to get married and possibly start a family) are severely hampered by exhorbitant student loan debt previously taken out that will never go away, even if consolidated or deferred. I’ve seen this phenomenon repeatedly for +/- 40 year-old fairly “newly minted” attorneys and it is pathetic. They can’t even pay child support for kids they had while in college or after graduation and still be able to live and make their student-loan payments (after consolidation and deferral as long as they can get away with, lol).

[quote=AN]I’m not sure you’re aware, but your 2nd post still basically said only well off families should have the opportunity to send their kids to good schools. Most good schools are in expensive areas. Well off families already have education accounts for their kids, so student loans are not needed for them. Restricting student loans = restricting # of lower income student the ability to achieve at their maximum potential. Which would only widen the economic divide (the rich will only get richer and the poor will only get poorer). Even in this great recession, white collar unemployment is much much lower than their blue collar counter part.[/quote]

I don’t agree that “most good schools” are in expensive areas. For instance, UC Davis is not situated in a particularly expensive area and it is a very good school for science majors.

I don’t agree that blue collar workers are inferior or make less money than white collar workers. I don’t agree that blue collar workers have a worse life than white collar workers or that there is higher unemployment in blue collar trades than white collar jobs. Remember, blue collar workers typically don’t owe anything in student loans! They can begin their young lives afresh with a decent salary!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]First off, what’s the chances of a HS graduate being able to save enough money to pay for 2 years of college? Secondly, with student loan rates being so low and students don’t have to pay them off until they finish their school, why not get the loan?…[/quote]

AN, if they go to community college for the first two years, it only costs $26 per credit hour. YES, a student can save that amount in HS if their parents are strapped. They may even qualify for a fee waiver! A student loan entraps their future. All kinds of things happen after college. The decisions the student may want to make (in the prime time of their lives to get married and possibly start a family) are severely hampered by exhorbitant student loan debt previously taken out that will never go away, even if consolidated or deferred. I’ve seen this phenomenon repeatedly for +/- 40 year-old fairly “newly minted” attorneys and it is pathetic. They can’t even pay child support for kids they had while in college or after graduation and still be able to live and make their student-loan payments (after consolidation and deferral as long as they can get away with, lol).

[quote=AN]I’m not sure you’re aware, but your 2nd post still basically said only well off families should have the opportunity to send their kids to good schools. Most good schools are in expensive areas. Well off families already have education accounts for their kids, so student loans are not needed for them. Restricting student loans = restricting # of lower income student the ability to achieve at their maximum potential. Which would only widen the economic divide (the rich will only get richer and the poor will only get poorer). Even in this great recession, white collar unemployment is much much lower than their blue collar counter part.[/quote]

I don’t agree that “most good schools” are in expensive areas. For instance, UC Davis is not situated in a particularly expensive area and it is a very good school for science majors.

I don’t agree that blue collar workers are inferior or make less money than white collar workers. I don’t agree that blue collar workers have a worse life than white collar workers or that there is higher unemployment in blue collar trades than white collar jobs. Remember, blue collar workers typically don’t owe anything in student loans! They can begin their young lives afresh with a decent salary!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]First off, what’s the chances of a HS graduate being able to save enough money to pay for 2 years of college? Secondly, with student loan rates being so low and students don’t have to pay them off until they finish their school, why not get the loan?…[/quote]

AN, if they go to community college for the first two years, it only costs $26 per credit hour. YES, a student can save that amount in HS if their parents are strapped. They may even qualify for a fee waiver! A student loan entraps their future. All kinds of things happen after college. The decisions the student may want to make (in the prime time of their lives to get married and possibly start a family) are severely hampered by exhorbitant student loan debt previously taken out that will never go away, even if consolidated or deferred. I’ve seen this phenomenon repeatedly for +/- 40 year-old fairly “newly minted” attorneys and it is pathetic. They can’t even pay child support for kids they had while in college or after graduation and still be able to live and make their student-loan payments (after consolidation and deferral as long as they can get away with, lol).

[quote=AN]I’m not sure you’re aware, but your 2nd post still basically said only well off families should have the opportunity to send their kids to good schools. Most good schools are in expensive areas. Well off families already have education accounts for their kids, so student loans are not needed for them. Restricting student loans = restricting # of lower income student the ability to achieve at their maximum potential. Which would only widen the economic divide (the rich will only get richer and the poor will only get poorer). Even in this great recession, white collar unemployment is much much lower than their blue collar counter part.[/quote]

I don’t agree that “most good schools” are in expensive areas. For instance, UC Davis is not situated in a particularly expensive area and it is a very good school for science majors.

I don’t agree that blue collar workers are inferior or make less money than white collar workers. I don’t agree that blue collar workers have a worse life than white collar workers or that there is higher unemployment in blue collar trades than white collar jobs. Remember, blue collar workers typically don’t owe anything in student loans! They can begin their young lives afresh with a decent salary!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]First off, what’s the chances of a HS graduate being able to save enough money to pay for 2 years of college? Secondly, with student loan rates being so low and students don’t have to pay them off until they finish their school, why not get the loan?…[/quote]

AN, if they go to community college for the first two years, it only costs $26 per credit hour. YES, a student can save that amount in HS if their parents are strapped. They may even qualify for a fee waiver! A student loan entraps their future. All kinds of things happen after college. The decisions the student may want to make (in the prime time of their lives to get married and possibly start a family) are severely hampered by exhorbitant student loan debt previously taken out that will never go away, even if consolidated or deferred. I’ve seen this phenomenon repeatedly for +/- 40 year-old fairly “newly minted” attorneys and it is pathetic. They can’t even pay child support for kids they had while in college or after graduation and still be able to live and make their student-loan payments (after consolidation and deferral as long as they can get away with, lol).

[quote=AN]I’m not sure you’re aware, but your 2nd post still basically said only well off families should have the opportunity to send their kids to good schools. Most good schools are in expensive areas. Well off families already have education accounts for their kids, so student loans are not needed for them. Restricting student loans = restricting # of lower income student the ability to achieve at their maximum potential. Which would only widen the economic divide (the rich will only get richer and the poor will only get poorer). Even in this great recession, white collar unemployment is much much lower than their blue collar counter part.[/quote]

I don’t agree that “most good schools” are in expensive areas. For instance, UC Davis is not situated in a particularly expensive area and it is a very good school for science majors.

I don’t agree that blue collar workers are inferior or make less money than white collar workers. I don’t agree that blue collar workers have a worse life than white collar workers or that there is higher unemployment in blue collar trades than white collar jobs. Remember, blue collar workers typically don’t owe anything in student loans! They can begin their young lives afresh with a decent salary!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]First off, what’s the chances of a HS graduate being able to save enough money to pay for 2 years of college? Secondly, with student loan rates being so low and students don’t have to pay them off until they finish their school, why not get the loan?…[/quote]

AN, if they go to community college for the first two years, it only costs $26 per credit hour. YES, a student can save that amount in HS if their parents are strapped. They may even qualify for a fee waiver! A student loan entraps their future. All kinds of things happen after college. The decisions the student may want to make (in the prime time of their lives to get married and possibly start a family) are severely hampered by exhorbitant student loan debt previously taken out that will never go away, even if consolidated or deferred. I’ve seen this phenomenon repeatedly for +/- 40 year-old fairly “newly minted” attorneys and it is pathetic. They can’t even pay child support for kids they had while in college or after graduation and still be able to live and make their student-loan payments (after consolidation and deferral as long as they can get away with, lol).

[quote=AN]I’m not sure you’re aware, but your 2nd post still basically said only well off families should have the opportunity to send their kids to good schools. Most good schools are in expensive areas. Well off families already have education accounts for their kids, so student loans are not needed for them. Restricting student loans = restricting # of lower income student the ability to achieve at their maximum potential. Which would only widen the economic divide (the rich will only get richer and the poor will only get poorer). Even in this great recession, white collar unemployment is much much lower than their blue collar counter part.[/quote]

I don’t agree that “most good schools” are in expensive areas. For instance, UC Davis is not situated in a particularly expensive area and it is a very good school for science majors.

I don’t agree that blue collar workers are inferior or make less money than white collar workers. I don’t agree that blue collar workers have a worse life than white collar workers or that there is higher unemployment in blue collar trades than white collar jobs. Remember, blue collar workers typically don’t owe anything in student loans! They can begin their young lives afresh with a decent salary!

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Author]

Posts