Not saying it is the overall cause of student debt, but many students in the 1st world have 1st world causes. That starbucks coffee on the run that costs 4.50, that beer run, that everything...yeah, everyone thinks college is a place to screw until your dick or vagina fall off, but it is not. It is a place to learn. And if you were not taught how to be frugal, pay please. But then I got the GI bill for abysmal working conditions and pay so who am I to say it...

And his rationale that people want to go to school to better themselves? No, most people go to school to make more money, ie. greed. It has little to do with bettering one's self.

I sent my email last night. APSCU@APSCU.org.

@Lawdeedaw

If you're studying something like engineering, there is a high likelihood that you will retain employment that will pay off a student loan over the next 10-20 years. Even if it's not your first preference, you will be employed somewhere with a reasonable income with such technical skills.

The government can play a useful role in amortizing your income. There's really no reason to be frugal and Starbucks aside, policy that forces you to work long hours in a dead-end job while studying to make ends meet is counter-productive as it reduces your long-term income. Not being able to even enrol because you're too poor, despite how smart you may be is also hugely destructive. This is why study assistance subsidies are such good policy. Them aside, you still have to clothe, house and feed yourself anyway.

Even if you say that there will be dropouts, fails, people who complete degrees with no job demand, you simply adjust up the interest rate you charge everyone for student debt to account for that loss. Then you have a mandatory contribution from any income you make above X amount that the student has to repay after they conclude their study. This way students can't simply retain a large debt with a low interest rate forever and subsidise everyone else by paying theirs off.

Also to incentivise correct course choice, you subsidise courses with skills in short supply/in demand more than those with good job prospects and a generally high expected income.

This is pretty much what we have in Australia under the HECS system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia#HECS

It would be great if the US had something similar (because designed well it pays for itself), but the cultural obsession much of the country seems to have with total laissez faire, 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps', even when it's not good policy makes it impossible.

Considering right now US Treasury bond rates (government borrowing rates) are at 60 year lows, it's doubly stupid.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, September 8th, 2014 12:15am PDT - promote requested by RedSky.

There is something to that. In terms of tuition costs at state universities, the largest part of the increase is due to cuts in state aid. However another part of the increase is universities have been getting nicer facilities. Like dorms are no longer a bunch of small concrete rooms that you keep your stuff in, they've gotten quite apartment like. Ok fair enough, but that all costs. The reason it is happening is demand from students.

It took me 13 years to pay back my student loan after five years of education.
I got off lucky.
A lot of "sad but true," here.

Families are now too poor to send their children to college - no one has that kind of money - Student loans are the only choice for the majority of the population.
A select few will also be able to apply for loans and bursaries, but lets be fair, those will only cover partial costs, even then, student loans will be needed to cover the balance owing.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by MrFisk.

I think universities fail pretty miserably at informing and preparing students for what their course of study will most likely entail once they graduate. And while it's great to say that education is worth it just for the learning portion of it, if you are taking out loans and your school is taking in that money...they should be putting you on your best foot forward in terms of job preparedness.

Besides the few friends I made during my university experience, I feel like it was a lot of wasted time and money because there have been at least three sizable job downturns in the field I studied since graduating.

And while I realize they can't guarantee you a job or that the jobs will be there, the numbers still say it's a growing field. They just kind of gloss over the fact that they are taking in about three times the number of people that the market can likely support, and continuing to do so each year. You MIGHT be the special one to have a lot of luck with the hunt, but even if you aren't....you still gotta pay back those loans. It's a no lose situation for the schools, because there is no expectations on placement....so they can keep taking in more and more students for programs that can't likely place half of them in their fields. That's assuming the economy doesn't barf all over itself every 5-8 years too.

I don't understand...aren't all colleges for profit?

In California we have a JR/community college system that transfers credits to 4 year colleges. You can take your first 2 years at a DRASTICALLY reduced expense, < $50 a credit the last time I went. You can also go there without a major or plan, just to learn. That's what I did for years and years, building up credits towards a degree without declaring one. It's really sad that that's not the norm, it seems like a great system. Not only does it make entry into 4 year colleges easier and cheaper, it also makes the 2/3 of students that drop out in the first 2 years have FAR less debt (if any) when they decide school is no longer the right option. It also opens higher education up to high school students with aptitude and older people who simply want to learn something new without breaking the bank to do so. This also makes for a better, more diverse student body.
Before someone who doesn't know makes the assumption that the level of education is lower than 4 year schools, you should know that many have been awarded 'best college' and 'best teacher' for the state repeatedly. True enough, there is an upper limit to the classes offered, but advanced molecular organic chemistry, offered and taken at Foothill college, was fairly advanced, as was advanced marine biology, taught by the repeated winner of 'best teacher' in the state. Each class cost about $250. WHAT A DEAL!

No, many are actually considered non-profits. That doesn't mean they don't make money, it means they are supposed to spend it on the college. For Stanford in the 80's for instance, that meant spending millions on parties for employees to avoid being 'profitable' and later they were busted for it, because multi million dollar parties weren't considered reasonable business expenses.

I was able to pay off my student loans in a couple years because I got a decent job that had nothing to do with my college education.

Our entire system is entirely stupid but the point of frugality is much more than what you noted Redsky. I agree that students should not have to have demanding jobs that destroy their leisure time; leisure in the academic sense of course. I also agree with what you say except one important American detail.

If we have more to spend we spend more, and more, and more. The American ideal is the new IPad and IPhone. More debt. The American ideal of college is beer pong and fast cars. Pussy and dick. More debt. Our ideal is NOT learning. Not on average. Fuck, John Stewart and John Oliver have harped on this shit over and over again in reference to the above class snot-nosed brats--but when it is about poor people bettering themselves, oh, we can't make fun of them. Even if they do it identically to the higher classes.

bare, I did not think you studied in American universities? I guess I was wrong as that is the only way you would downvote my comment. Otherwise you would be very uninformed and judgmental about something of which you know nothing about.

Every American college I have went to is filled to the brim with "students" just struggling to get a degree. This holds true for everyone I speak to. Few students read the literature, almost none read all the required material. Phones are a constant problem as the students drool on them.

The poor are in a far worse position than the rich. They work, have kids, and they certainly don't care about education. Most CAN'T care. So yeah, not very many go to school to better themselves in a way that Universities can. Ie., they don't learn for learning's sake.

Where to start, Lawdeedaw?
First, your comment was not limited to American colleges, so your admonition to @bareboards2 is a misstep.
Second, I must guess from the grammar and your estimations that you were visiting these colleges, not enrolled, because my experience was far different. I was a struggling full time, minimum wager earner while I went to college on my own dime for YEARS, because I wanted to learn things, not for a 'degree' to get a good paying career. I knew many others there that may have hoped to better their earning potential, but also wanted to better themselves, and so took many elective classes that didn't further an academic career, as did I. I also knew some of those at Stanford, but fewer.
EDIT:The poor not caring about education is not only wrong, it's extremely insulting. Because attaining good education is more difficult does not make it less important to them, in fact it's likely MORE important, and many sacrifice to a degree inconceivable to the 'rich' to educate themselves and their children.
And not all Americans are overt consumerists ruled by their base emotions and without any self control. Many are, but not all by a long shot.

You ask where to start? It is obvious that was not rhetorical in any way shape or form because your argument was poorly put together from the beginning.

"The total bill due in AMERICA tops 1 trillion." Then, "That's right, student debt in AMERICA..." There is even a reference to an AMERICAN President, and everything else about this video was about America. We see a reoccurring theme here newt?

So follows the logic that since this discourse is focused solely on American schools, then we are all talking about American schools. No other assumption is logical. My comment, with that prefacing in mind, is obviously intended for American schools. Yeah, take it out of context and I look like an idiot, but with the context I am not the one that looks stupid.

Let me give you another example. Say we are talking about gay rights in America and I just generalize the concept of gay rights after an intense discussion about just that. You could argue that since gay rights in tribal, African countries are different then I am stupid, but don’t be such a stickler for pathetic red herrings.

Second, the problems facing the poor are tragic. It is WELL DOCUMENTED; however, that poor children have lower grades. Why? Because it's hard to think on an empty stomach. In other words, it's hard to care about what the fuck is on the chalkboard when you have to worry about where you are going to get food at or hell, if you will have a roof over your head. This fact is not insulting, as you clearly say it is, this is reality. A sad, tragic reality that few in America have the balls to have a real discourse on. We trivialize it behind a false veneer. We make it seem like the poor try so hard and care so much but that if only we helped them a little more they could succeed. No, we have to help them a LOT more.

I think all colleges should be paid for by the government. I think books and research materials should be free. I think we can do a lot more than what we currently do.

Lastly, one student in my current class is obviously lacking in education and more so obvious does not care. She is a mother of three children, one of which is disabled. I can see why she just wants the degree and I don't judge her. You, on the other hand, do unintentionally judge this woman, newt. You insult her by suggesting her lack of educational pursuance is rare to the poor and that she must be failing that pursuit because of a lack of drive. She cannot care about bettering her leisurely time newt, period.

Do you think I gave a fuck about learning, just for education’s sake when my brothers beat me, threw me down the stairs, choked me, humiliated me, and shoved a pillow over my face at night? Or when they punched my skull into concrete and beat my dog? You insult the hell out of me—as though I SHOULD have cared when I just tried to survive. As though I failed to care and that made me a failure. The poor should not care—they should survive. We should all help them care.

And @newtboy I agree with John Stewart and many others such as Karl Marx and people who know what they are talking about. We are consumerists, we fall for the bullshit TV ads, otherwise they would not be a billion dollar industry. We place our desktops and laptops and IPhones well above other considerations. We, and I mean Americans in case you obviously did not know I was talking about my own peeps, are consumerists.

Marx noted the bourgeoisie use these kind of trappings to placate the masses. He noted that for a reason that holds true even to this day.

@Lawdeedaw, you might have taken me to task for downvoting your comment. However, four other pretty smart Sifters joined me and nobody upvoted it.

This isn't a democracy, of course.

I'm pleased, none the less.

Actually it was rhetorical, I knew where I was going to start, I was not asking you in a real way or expecting you to answer...that's what rhetorical means.
Because the video was limited to American schools and systems does not mean the comments will be, we have a diverse bunch of sifters from all over the globe that might want to comment, and might not stick to America as the only place that counts. It is logical to ASSUME you might have meant only American schools, but some of us don't assume we know another's meaning and just go with what you wrote. If you wanted to limit your comment to American schools, you could easily have written exactly that. There's not a character limit on posts!
Or, perhaps Bareboards2 knows some Americans that would be insulted by your painting them as lowest common denominators at their basest. I would be one. I admitted those you describe exist, and may even be a majority, but Americans are not homogenous by far, and there are many that do exactly what you claimed they don't.
It's not hard to CARE, it's hard to retain, it's hard to focus, it's hard to attend at times, it's hard to come up with supplies, it's not hard at all to CARE about education, and I've never met a person of lesser means that didn't wish they could get more education. Saying they don't care is insulting, saying they don't achieve (as well as rich counterparts) is fact, sad tragic fact.
Yes, I agree, we need to help the poor a LOT more, their plight is getting worse daily while those not in need are the only ones succeeding.
I'm right there with you on free higher education, for the betterment of the nation AND it's citizens. College grads are far less likely to commit violent crimes or otherwise be drains on society, so are a boon for all.
It sounds like you may be confusing a lack of time, money, ability, and energy with a lack of caring, or perhaps not. As I said, those you describe do exist, in large numbers, they are simply not the ONLY variety of American student.
What?!? If this woman is in class working and paying for a degree while trying to raise 3 kids, one disabled, it sure sounds to me like she CARES about education, and that she's not lacking in educational pursuance or lack of drive, she's possibly failing for lack of energy and time would be my guess, or maybe from lack of educational preparation, or innate ability. If she didn't care, she shouldn't be spending money and time being in class working for a degree that no longer guarantees more money, she should be in welding class, or making bank cleaning up the school. There's nothing wrong with that, I've done both. People who only want to get more money and don't care about knowledge should go that route, they'll have a much better chance of success and not be in crippling debt for a chance they'll use their diploma for financial gain.
WTF?!? When they stopped the abuse, did you care then? The poor have tribulations, but are not constantly working to the bone unable to even contemplate a better future because they're outrageously accosted by life every second of the day. Be real. When there's time to think, many people of all social strata think how they would like to lean something new. You obviously cared enough to be in classes now even with this abuse you speak of, just like I did when and after all those things happened to me (but with only one brother. For me it was actually incentive to learn more and be 'better' than my brother whenever possible, in order to have a better life, I know I'm a freak though ), so what's your point? The poor don't think about furthering their education 100% of the waking day because they're too busy being poor, so they don't care about it at all? That's just silly. I think many if not most don't think about it much because they've determined there's no reasonable opportunity for them to achieve it, so why dwell on what you can't have. It' s not an issue of not careing.
I think we should help them have the opportunity to gain higher education and ability to make use of that opportunity because we know most of them DO CARE about education, but could certainly use help to achieve it. Those that don't care (I again admit they exist, but not only among the poor) should be helped to care, because it's important for them and us to have everyone educated.
Jon Stewart was generalizing, not making a statement about each and every American. I only take issue with the broad brush strokes painting all Americans in the same ugly color, I think we're a quite varied and interesting group, and I don't resemble your generalization in the least...and I'm American. I did admit that I think many, if not most Americans do fit your description, but you seem to still take exception to that viewpoint.

You might have a point if the entire system wasn't rigged to create lower socioeconomic people...

Stagnant wages, government protectionism to convince everyone it's still okay, huge companies employing tens of thousands on pay that doesn't get them above the poverty line.

There is a huge strata in the US demographic where people are scraping by day to day and literally grasp at straws just to get a normal life, not a rich one. And when their kids grow up? Will their parents be able to chip in for tuition, or will they still be servicing their own student loans?

ps. You're confusing greed with desire, or even need. Greed is sitting down to dinner and taking everyone else's meal. Desire is wanting to be at least fucking invited to the table. Need is being left out in the cold for so long you're starving to death. It's fucking hard to be greedy when you have almost nothing.

I haven't confused anything with anything. The American ideal is ridiculous. Our belief, for the most part, is that everyone can strike it rich. Republicans preach it, so do democrats, our president, etc. Trillions of lotto tickets have been sold. Even poor people spend on some rich man's idea of necessity.

And to your point that the system is rigged. Absolutely. Absolutely absolutely absolutely. That does not diminish my point though...

You know why I am going to school? Why I am have a 3.98 GPA at a prestigious University? Because I want to work in a job that pays less. Yes, I mean that. I want a job that is a pay cut. I can't stand the brutal nature of my job. I want to be an educator. Period.

I only choose you because we are friends and I know you are smarter than a knee-jerk reaction. If you don't understand the content of the discussion post, please don't upvote or downvote the post.

I downvoted the comment. With all my smarts in place.

It was an ugly comment that dismissed the aspirations of many people with a crude broadbrush denigration.

And so I downvoted.

If you don't understand why I downvote, please don't take me to task. Friends or no, yeah?

Touche'