fear of student loans. ex.37665(a)

[Allan from Fallbrook]

ER: Couldn’t agree more. I see this from two differing and distinct perspectives. As a business owner in the blast engineering and protective design business, we hire only M.S. and PhD pedigreed engineers, due to the very stringent nature of our business. Thus, it’s not uncommon to hire engineers carrying $150k or more in student debt.

As a coach who counsels high school athletes on college selection, the first thing a recruiting coach will mention is the tens (or hundreds) of millions that have been plowed into their football facilities. Watch an Oregon football game and you’re seeing a team that has dozens of different helmet, shoe and uniform configurations (courtesy of Phil Knight of Nike, an Oregon alum). While I have no issue with alum donations, Oregon has used this to not only attract students, but raise the tuition rate as well. I love football, but it has jack to do with the quality of education being offered. Even formerly “off the beaten path” schools are using athletics as a recruiting tool to attract non-athletes and raise tuition rates accordingly. I’ve seen Division I schools that have locker rooms and player amenities that rival the pros.

With over a trillion dollars in outstanding student loans, something has to give. These debts are not dischargeable through BK and have to be exerting pressure in other areas, like retarding the ability of those in their 20s and 30s from purchasing a starter home.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=earlyretirement]I thought this was interesting and good to see.

Private universities and colleges being forced to effectively lower their tuition via grants and scholarships.

More parents need to really think about the logic of sending their kids to expensive (in many cases inferior) private schools that cost a fortune.

I’d love to see these schools being forced to cut costs drastically or go under.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324582004578461450531723268.html?mod=trending_now_1
[/quote]

ER, I was noticing this, also, when investigating alternatives to the (broken) CSU system in which it now takes 6-8 years to graduate out of most programs.

All campuses of UC (excepting Fresno, Merced and Santa Cruz) are overwhelmingly accepting freshman with 4.0+ GPA (weighted with AP credits) along with out-of-state/out-of-country applicants with same credentials over similarly or less qualified in-state residents.

I found that the vast majority of these private schools, while offering generous aid, are ULTRA-picky. In short, they are admitting applicants with a 4.0+ GPA and who have a 1700+ SAT score and a 30+ ACT score.

I’m still trying to convince my last kid to consider four out-of-state four-year public colleges (two of which they can currently qualify to be admitted to as a freshman) and one of which they can get a four-year “free ride,” excepting an approx $180 – $200 mo housing expense.

My kid won’t consider visiting these campuses because they still dream of going to college in-state.

The “B” CA-resident incoming freshman apparently isn’t welcome anymore at CA’s public universities because these systems receive far more in fees by accepting OOS/OOC applicants.

I don’t think it’s right, especially in light of the fact that many of these resident-applicants’ parents pay taxes on two or more residences and also investment properties in CA. These property tax coffers are intercepted by the state (and portions removed for the UC/CSU systems) before portions are reapportioned and redirected back to the counties, schools and the respective agencies for which the county tax collectors collect from each parcel in their jurisdiction on the behalf of these payees.

For the above reasons and more, I feel CA has a duty to offer its public-university freshman slots to qualified “B” resident applicants over OOS/OOC applicants …. as many other states do. Many flyover states with high rural populations, especially, realize that their 1-3 in-state university campuses are the only hope for half the resident incoming-freshman population in their states to receive any opportunity at all for a higher education. For instance, they don’t give too many of those coveted slots away to engineer-hopefuls from Pakistan or India without thoroughly culling THEIR OWN in-state applicants first.

As it should be.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] . . . With over a trillion dollars in outstanding student loans, something has to give. These debts are not dischargeable through BK and have to be exerting pressure in other areas, like retarding the ability of those in their 20s and 30s from purchasing a starter home.[/quote]

I’m sure those with large student-loan balances (of ANY age) are having issues with being able to access credit, whether to purchase a home, refinance, buy a vehicle, etc. I have extensively counseled my kids to NEVER take out student loans or fill out any application for a CC while in college, whether those apps were distributed on campus or not.

I’ve come to the conclusion over the last six months or so that the best college education can probably be found at smaller four-year colleges in which each student has an academic counselor chained to their ankle (and iphone, etc) and the typical class sizes are under 25 students.

When a student is paying big bucks to be “just a number” at a campus of a large public or private university system (such as UC and CSU), so many details of their class selection and ability to obtain needed classes to graduate can easily fall through the cracks. Especially for the students who have to work part-time jobs to help with their living expenses and so have a pretty “hectic” life. The mistakes made by students attending these huge campuses with Gen Ed class sizes of 500 or more and program major classes of 300 or more cannot be fixed without a lot more time and money invested.

That seems to be the way the CSU/UC’s like it now. They seem to want a student to be held “hostage” to obtain their undergrad degree because they collect so much more money from the student while they are taking 1-2 classes to finish in their 5th year and beyond.

Thus, even if a “liberal arts” college (with bus/eng and other major programs of study avail), the public or private college of <5000 students is a better deal in the long run if the institution can reliably crank out 350-400 graduates per academic year in all of the programs it offers, IMHO.

Of course, this type of college wouldn't be sought by Allan's athletic-scholarship hopefuls :=]

[SK in CV]

BG, I think you’re making things out to be much worse than they actually are. Average class size at the CSU campuses are mostly around 30 for lower division classes, and much lower than that for upper division classes. Students CAN graduate in less than 6 years, and at most campuses more than 1/2 of the students do graduate in 6 years or less. Kids can get lost and take longer, but motivated students don’t have to. The difficulty in getting classes really doesn’t sound significantly different than when I was at SDSU and had to crash almost every class my first 3 years. It took me 5 years to graduate, but that was with 4 changes to my major. Which I suspect, is exactly why the current crop is often taking longer than 4 years. My daughter recently graduated from UCSD in 4 years. A couple of summer school classes, and she could have done it in 3 1/2. But she picked out her major when she was 7.

I’m not sure how there’s a big advantage to that “smaller four-year colleges in which each student has an academic counselor chained to their ankle (and iphone, etc) and the typical class sizes are under 25 students”. More likely than not, it’s a private school with costs that far exceed the resident cost for either the CSU or UC system.

[bearishgurl]

[quote]All campuses of UC (excepting Fresno, Merced and Santa Cruz) are overwhelmingly accepting freshman with 4.0+ GPA (weighted with AP credits) along with out-of-state/out-of-country applicants with same credentials over similarly or less qualified in-state residents. [/quote]

I’m revising my earlier comment.

I just logged onto collegeboard.org and realized the HS senior acceptance cutoff date (for academic year 13/14) was between 4/15/13 and 5/1/13 so *new* acceptance data is now available for UC/CSU.

The overall (in-state/OOS/OOC) freshman admission percentage of out total applicants for the following five campuses, which, except for UCSC, are located in CA’s “armpit,” are now as follows:

Name of Campus/% of freshman applicants admitted for AY 13/14

UC Riverside: 63%
UC San Bernardino: 58%
UC Merced: 76%
Fresno State: 58%

UCSC: 61%

One can only guess how much of this low percentage of freshman-applicant acceptance is actually comprised of CA residents.

Conversely, it seems to be getting slightly easier now for freshmen to get accepted at some of CA’s urban public university campuses. I attribute this reversal to CA families now realizing how cheap it is to buy or rent housing for their student in CA’s (overbuilt) armpits as opposed to the cost of obtaining housing near CA’s more coastal urban campuses. Thus, the high-school grads who did not get accepted to their first or second-choice campuses out-of-county undoubtedly ended up taking a slot in the inland campuses for AY 13/14.

[bearishgurl]

btw, last time I checked (2011) the fee to take an upper-division 3 credit-hour class online (given at a CSU campus other than the one the student was enrolled in) was an additional $800 (over and above the fees the student already paid for those credits). This is for “feedback, grading and transfer of grade and credits to the student’s ‘home campus.'”

It’s just another “fee gotcha” for CSU upperclassmen who are desperate to graduate.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]BG, I think you’re making things out to be much worse than they actually are. Average class size at the CSU campuses are mostly around 30 for lower division classes, and much lower than that for upper division classes. Students CAN graduate in less than 6 years, and at most campuses more than 1/2 of the students do graduate in 6 years or less. Kids can get lost and take longer, but motivated students don’t have to. The difficulty in getting classes really doesn’t sound significantly different than when I was at SDSU and had to crash almost every class my first 3 years. It took me 5 years to graduate, but that was with 4 changes to my major. Which I suspect, is exactly why the current crop is often taking longer than 4 years. My daughter recently graduated from UCSD in 4 years. A couple of summer school classes, and she could have done it in 3 1/2. But she picked out her major when she was 7.

I’m not sure how there’s a big advantage to that “smaller four-year colleges in which each student has an academic counselor chained to their ankle (and iphone, etc) and the typical class sizes are under 25 students”. More likely than not, it’s a private school with costs that far exceed the resident cost for either the CSU or UC system.[/quote]

SK, I don’t know when your daughter graduated but the biggest budget cuts to CSU’s programs went into effect in 2010. The truth is, some 300 and 400 level classes are now only offered every fall semester OR every spring semester at ONE (inconvenient) time slot on many campuses, including those that are “impacted.” This makes it very hard for employed students to get their needed classes and this ONE class, as you can imagine, fills up VERY fast.

It is the fact that needed classes to graduate are no longer offered at the correct semester or even at the same campus which make it hard to graduate in a timely manner. A junior or senior is now expected to obtain one or more of their needed 300-400 level classes either online (for an addt’l fee) or at a nearby CSU campus if they can’t get into the class they need (offered only once per year).

I don’t have any experience with the UC system.

Yes, overall (my kids are eligible for a fee waiver for CSU and UC), I DO think the CSU WAS a good bargain but not so much anymore if the student and/or his family has to pay their (now exorbitant) fees. It is the HOUSING around CA urban coastal campuses which is prohibitively expensive, even with a couple of roommates. And utilities including cable and internet have skyrocketed in recent years. It is so expensive that it no doubt represents the difference between taking a slot at UC Merced (as opposed to UCSB, if accepted to both campuses) for many families.

I think it is a VERY attractive investment now and going forward to buy a house/condo near a CA university campus for your student to live in while going to school (and for the parent to collect rent from their student’s roommates’ parents).

Depending, of course, on location, after a little clean-up/rehab after their student moves out after graduation to accept a position elsewhere, the parent could put it back on the market in ~6 years and be “assured” of getting their entire college-housing-investment back, perhaps even with a nice profit!

For this reason, if the parent can invest in student housing near a CA university with a perpetual “captive audience,” they could very well end up with enough “profit” in the end to pay for all or part of their students’ educational expenses.

In the “flyover-state” locales which have small colleges, small class sizes and low college housing expenses, it would be impractical for a parent to buy student housing due to the inability to break even upon sale years hence, much less make a profit, IMHO.

[The-Shoveler]

About those Overbuilt inland area colleges,

You would be surprised , Riverside ranks number 6 in
“Top 10 Happiest Cities for Young Professionals”
Just behind SD, interestingly L.A. is nowhere on the list,

http://wamu.org/news/13/05/02/dc_ranks_as_third_happiest_city_for_young_professionals

Top 10 Happiest Cities for Young Professionals
Rank City Score
1 San Jose, Calif. 3.94
2 San Francisco, Calif. 3.93
3 Washington, DC 3.85
4 Chicago, Ill. 3.85
5 San Diego, Calif. 3.85
6 Riverside, Calif. 3.84
7 Philadelphia, Pa. 3.84
8 Houston, Texas 3.83
9 Phoenix, Ariz. 3.83
10 Boston, Mass. 3.83

Not saying this has anything to do with it, but there has been a large pool of Asian population move near the UC riverside college in the last 10 or so years.

[bearishgurl]

Shoveler, I haven’t yet read your article but will surmise that those “happiest young professionals” are no doubt TV residents with kids who are commuting 50+ miles one way to work every day. They are on the “happiest” list because they got their requisite 4/2/2.5 *newish* house in TV for half (or less) the price of what it would have cost them in coastal counties. If they purchased their “bargain TV home” in recent years, these (Gen Y?) “happiest professional” parents haven’t yet resided in TV long enough to realize the degree of daily grind they got themselves into due to the dearth of well-paying white-collar jobs in the IE.

“Young professionals” and “students” are two different animals. Recent CA HS grads who grew up in CA’s coastal counties generally do NOT want to attend an inland CA public university campus UNLESS they are not accepted at their (choice) more coastal-situated campuses.

In other words, UCM, UC Riverside, San Bernardino State and Fresno State are likely the last-resort in-state campuses for all resident-freshman applicants but those who plan to drive to said campus every day from a parent’s home (those HS grads who grew up in the same county as the inland campus).

This may be slowly changing due to the highly publicized Riv and Stockton BKs revealing to the public just how overbuilt these areas got in recent years and thus how cheap the housing there is. ESPECIALLY when a studio or one BR apt near Long Beach State is now a ridiculous ~$1500 mo.

[The-Shoveler]

This is a better link BG,

Forbes
The Best Cities For Technology Jobs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2011/11/18/the-best-cities-for-technology-jobs/

Things change fast,

Bedroom commuter towns quickly become Job centers in the High Tech world.

You learn a few things watching a city grow from 20K to 300K in population.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . You learn a few things watching a city grow from 20K to 300K in population.[/quote]

The only thing I experienced from watching ChulaV grow from a 52K to a 277K population was longer lines everywhere and more traffic everywhere (due to the “new residents’ hwy” being a toll road, lol). I also “learned” that the City will stop at nothing to create more “revenue” for themselves at any cost to their current residents … only to expand to serve the new residents and then later lay off (when their *new* population fell down on its responsibilities to pay their property taxes and MR (and also their principal, interest, homeowner’s insurance premiums and HOA premiums, lol) as well as failed to maintain their properties.

This “freeloading-squatter phenomenon” went on for YEARS and adversely affected EVERY property owner in the city.

The City created their own monster by issuing subdivision and building permits with abandon causing ALL its residents (new and longtime) to live with severely reduced services as a consequence.

Such is the result of the “experiment” of unbridled growth.

I “get it,” shoveler. Truly, I do.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]This is a better link BG,

Forbes
The Best Cities For Technology Jobs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2011/11/18/the-best-cities-for-technology-jobs/

. . . [/quote]

Ahhhhh, ye-e-e-e-s . . . another article written by that (infamously misguided) Joel Kotkin…..

Here’s a thread where Kotkin’s “findings” were discussed at length:

http://piggington.com/the_great_california_exodus

Kotkin would do well to jog his memory a bit back to ’72, when he was likely living in a rat-infested 2 br Berkeley walkup with 3 other guys or his first 1150 sf Oakland “bungalow” in ’78 (where he lived when his first child was born, lol), and ask himself if HIS expectations as a newly-minted college graduate and new parent were the same as those similarly-situated residents of today.

http://piggington.com/the_great_california_exodus#comment-208236

Nothing’s changed, shoveler. I stand by (my April 2012) statement today.

[The-Shoveler]

Whatever

Inland Empire second fastest in growing high-tech jobs in US

http://www.caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/inland-empire-second-fastest-in-growing-high-tech-jobs-in-us

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Whatever

Inland Empire second fastest in growing high-tech jobs in US

http://www.caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/inland-empire-second-fastest-in-growing-high-tech-jobs-in-us%5B/quote%5D

Interesting, shoveler. Do you know the names of any high-tech companies which have moved into the IE?

[The-Shoveler]

Well OK, the raw number of Hi-Tech jobs in the IE is still small yet, and mostly start-up’s.

But the growth has been accelerating over the last 10 years.

It still has a ways to go but its growing fast.

TV still reminds me of Valencia, I would expect a repeat.

It’s not Irvine (Valencia) but it’s not too far from it.

[Author]

Posts