Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[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!
Participant[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!
Participant[quote=Scarlett]I am not saying that. One can postpone going to college ( or at least the last 2 years) and save money working while living at home. Or attend a college in town or state. Encourage real penny-pinching and responsibility for students. Work jobs while attending college. Family can help with living expenses.
…[/quote]I told my kids that there are two 4-bdrm homes they can stay in for free to go to college at SDSU and UCSD (mine and their dad’s). None were impressed with the wages down here and wanted out. Also we raised them to be independent and they wanted to get their feet wet. They were (and are) willing to work to MAKE IT somewhere else where there are more opportunities. So be it. They are willing to work jobs and be on their own. That is the essence of “growing up” in the “real world.”
Participant[quote=Scarlett]I am not saying that. One can postpone going to college ( or at least the last 2 years) and save money working while living at home. Or attend a college in town or state. Encourage real penny-pinching and responsibility for students. Work jobs while attending college. Family can help with living expenses.
…[/quote]I told my kids that there are two 4-bdrm homes they can stay in for free to go to college at SDSU and UCSD (mine and their dad’s). None were impressed with the wages down here and wanted out. Also we raised them to be independent and they wanted to get their feet wet. They were (and are) willing to work to MAKE IT somewhere else where there are more opportunities. So be it. They are willing to work jobs and be on their own. That is the essence of “growing up” in the “real world.”
Participant[quote=Scarlett]I am not saying that. One can postpone going to college ( or at least the last 2 years) and save money working while living at home. Or attend a college in town or state. Encourage real penny-pinching and responsibility for students. Work jobs while attending college. Family can help with living expenses.
…[/quote]I told my kids that there are two 4-bdrm homes they can stay in for free to go to college at SDSU and UCSD (mine and their dad’s). None were impressed with the wages down here and wanted out. Also we raised them to be independent and they wanted to get their feet wet. They were (and are) willing to work to MAKE IT somewhere else where there are more opportunities. So be it. They are willing to work jobs and be on their own. That is the essence of “growing up” in the “real world.”
Participant[quote=Scarlett]I am not saying that. One can postpone going to college ( or at least the last 2 years) and save money working while living at home. Or attend a college in town or state. Encourage real penny-pinching and responsibility for students. Work jobs while attending college. Family can help with living expenses.
…[/quote]I told my kids that there are two 4-bdrm homes they can stay in for free to go to college at SDSU and UCSD (mine and their dad’s). None were impressed with the wages down here and wanted out. Also we raised them to be independent and they wanted to get their feet wet. They were (and are) willing to work to MAKE IT somewhere else where there are more opportunities. So be it. They are willing to work jobs and be on their own. That is the essence of “growing up” in the “real world.”
Participant[quote=Scarlett]I am not saying that. One can postpone going to college ( or at least the last 2 years) and save money working while living at home. Or attend a college in town or state. Encourage real penny-pinching and responsibility for students. Work jobs while attending college. Family can help with living expenses.
…[/quote]I told my kids that there are two 4-bdrm homes they can stay in for free to go to college at SDSU and UCSD (mine and their dad’s). None were impressed with the wages down here and wanted out. Also we raised them to be independent and they wanted to get their feet wet. They were (and are) willing to work to MAKE IT somewhere else where there are more opportunities. So be it. They are willing to work jobs and be on their own. That is the essence of “growing up” in the “real world.”
Participant[quote=Scarlett]Then how about limiting the loan amount strictly to tuition+books – something that’s clearly quantifiable and justfied by receipts etc.? Let the students figure out how to pay for the living expenses. Maybe that would force reconsidering saving for living expenses, and also housing and location of the college.[/quote]
I’m in favor of that. The student-loan lenders should pay for these items directly or from a show of reciepts the student sends in.
My kids’ aid (scholarship and grant) is paid directly to whom it is owed. It used to cover everything except living expenses but doesn’t anymore and hasn’t in a couple of years.
There is a wide variation in the way college students live, dress and transport themselves. I think the students from poorer families see what more affluent students wear, are driving, where they live and what they do for entertainment and then take out student loans to live more like them with no regard for the consequences.
I don’t think this phenomenon is such a problem in the interior campuses such a Merced and Fresno. Housing is cheaper around there, entertainment choices are not on the same scale as coastal cities and MANY students from these areas are from less affluent backgrounds and are living at home attending university.
Participant[quote=Scarlett]Then how about limiting the loan amount strictly to tuition+books – something that’s clearly quantifiable and justfied by receipts etc.? Let the students figure out how to pay for the living expenses. Maybe that would force reconsidering saving for living expenses, and also housing and location of the college.[/quote]
I’m in favor of that. The student-loan lenders should pay for these items directly or from a show of reciepts the student sends in.
My kids’ aid (scholarship and grant) is paid directly to whom it is owed. It used to cover everything except living expenses but doesn’t anymore and hasn’t in a couple of years.
There is a wide variation in the way college students live, dress and transport themselves. I think the students from poorer families see what more affluent students wear, are driving, where they live and what they do for entertainment and then take out student loans to live more like them with no regard for the consequences.
I don’t think this phenomenon is such a problem in the interior campuses such a Merced and Fresno. Housing is cheaper around there, entertainment choices are not on the same scale as coastal cities and MANY students from these areas are from less affluent backgrounds and are living at home attending university.
Participant[quote=Scarlett]Then how about limiting the loan amount strictly to tuition+books – something that’s clearly quantifiable and justfied by receipts etc.? Let the students figure out how to pay for the living expenses. Maybe that would force reconsidering saving for living expenses, and also housing and location of the college.[/quote]
I’m in favor of that. The student-loan lenders should pay for these items directly or from a show of reciepts the student sends in.
My kids’ aid (scholarship and grant) is paid directly to whom it is owed. It used to cover everything except living expenses but doesn’t anymore and hasn’t in a couple of years.
There is a wide variation in the way college students live, dress and transport themselves. I think the students from poorer families see what more affluent students wear, are driving, where they live and what they do for entertainment and then take out student loans to live more like them with no regard for the consequences.
I don’t think this phenomenon is such a problem in the interior campuses such a Merced and Fresno. Housing is cheaper around there, entertainment choices are not on the same scale as coastal cities and MANY students from these areas are from less affluent backgrounds and are living at home attending university.
Participant[quote=Scarlett]Then how about limiting the loan amount strictly to tuition+books – something that’s clearly quantifiable and justfied by receipts etc.? Let the students figure out how to pay for the living expenses. Maybe that would force reconsidering saving for living expenses, and also housing and location of the college.[/quote]
I’m in favor of that. The student-loan lenders should pay for these items directly or from a show of reciepts the student sends in.
My kids’ aid (scholarship and grant) is paid directly to whom it is owed. It used to cover everything except living expenses but doesn’t anymore and hasn’t in a couple of years.
There is a wide variation in the way college students live, dress and transport themselves. I think the students from poorer families see what more affluent students wear, are driving, where they live and what they do for entertainment and then take out student loans to live more like them with no regard for the consequences.
I don’t think this phenomenon is such a problem in the interior campuses such a Merced and Fresno. Housing is cheaper around there, entertainment choices are not on the same scale as coastal cities and MANY students from these areas are from less affluent backgrounds and are living at home attending university.
Participant[quote=Scarlett]Then how about limiting the loan amount strictly to tuition+books – something that’s clearly quantifiable and justfied by receipts etc.? Let the students figure out how to pay for the living expenses. Maybe that would force reconsidering saving for living expenses, and also housing and location of the college.[/quote]
I’m in favor of that. The student-loan lenders should pay for these items directly or from a show of reciepts the student sends in.
My kids’ aid (scholarship and grant) is paid directly to whom it is owed. It used to cover everything except living expenses but doesn’t anymore and hasn’t in a couple of years.
There is a wide variation in the way college students live, dress and transport themselves. I think the students from poorer families see what more affluent students wear, are driving, where they live and what they do for entertainment and then take out student loans to live more like them with no regard for the consequences.
I don’t think this phenomenon is such a problem in the interior campuses such a Merced and Fresno. Housing is cheaper around there, entertainment choices are not on the same scale as coastal cities and MANY students from these areas are from less affluent backgrounds and are living at home attending university.
May 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM in reply to: OT: California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree #693046Participant[quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)
Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?
Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]
Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.
pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=]
May 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM in reply to: OT: California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree #693125Participant[quote=pri_dk]The public pension employees will get the full benefit, as required by law. Whose money will be used to make up the difference? (Hint: It’s not the sh!tcanned fund manager, who was probably chosen by a public employee in the first place.)
Now if someone in the private sector loses money in their 401K because their money was mismanaged, who is on the hook to make up the shortfall?
Keep trying, maybe you’ll get it eventually…[/quote]
Actually, pension fund managers are chosen by retirement boards, which are comprised by law of one active public safety employee, one active non-safety employee, two retired employees, two local business owners or local CEOs (or one of each) and one elected official (usually a county supervisor). There has to be a quorum and majority vote on any decision.
pri_dk, try not to come off sounding like a dk unless you know what you’re talking about ;=]
-
AuthorPosts
