Actually there was some push back against me going into a position as a "self taught" applicant vs one with a degree. I really had to sell myself as someone who had the skills to do the job and why that was better than someone with an expensive piece of paper. I was the guy who, while working as a file room clerk, used to come in early and help out the maintenance team, volunteered to assist the mail room on slow days and stayed late to help out the IT department when there were big tech issues. I had proved my work ethic to get to that point and proved it again by pursuing intensive independent studies to ensure I had the proper knowledge, which was the whole point of education anyway. The college grad, by contrast, just proved that they could make it to graduation. Do they want 4 years of hard work and experience or 4 years of sitting in lectures and playing beer pong? It also helped that the other applicant approached the interview with the "I earned a degree and therefore I'm entitled to a large starting salary" attitude.


To answer your question, I learned a lot of skills in the military but not a lot that could help me in the civilian world. Ironically I told the officer who actually processed my paperwork that I wanted a position that provided some technical skills I could use and wasn't a code word for "obvious target" on a battlefield. I wound up as an electronic systems repairer for spy planes. It was actually a lot more awesome than it sounds, I learned to read schematics, analyze circuit boards and could de-solder bad components and solder new ones in their place. I remember one time when one of our planes had just took off and the crew radioed in that the entire surveillance system (which included IR Cameras, signal jammers and the equipment to monitor radio and cell phone transmissions) had completely died, there was no power in any part of the system. This was not a training exercise, we were running a live mission, so the plane immediately turned around and came in for a landing. The other techs and I went into a frenzy discussing all the possibilities that could cause a total power failure in our equipment but not the entire plane. The system was designed so a single power source could be used, almost like a string of Christmas lights. The main difference was that you weren't supposed to lose the whole system should one "bulb" go out, unless it was the first bulb in the string. So I grabbed a tool box in one hand and a replacement unit in the other, which together weighed about 40 pounds (or 18kg for my friends across the pond), and ran out onto the runway and met the plane as it landed and came to a stop. I hopped on board, swapped out the parts and got the whole system up and running again. Unfortunately that's not something I could really put on a resume.

In fact most of my electronics skills are now obsolete, circuit boards now use multi-layer technology so nobody is soldering them by hand anymore and the planes I used to work on have all been replaced by UAVs. I do have my own multimeter and oscilloscope but haven't used them for anything beyond fixing the dryer in about a decade. My knowledge of firearms, explosives and searching for land mines are also no longer helpful. The Army did give me a greater attention to detail however, I'm much more observant than my peers.

Ditto... To see myself actually missing the shelters and radios... woe is me :P (25Q or 31B i think)

Whole lot of bad/misleading info in this thread.

The mean debt for a bachelor's degree recipient is generally calculated to be around 28k, with a median around 24k. Of the schools that do cost 60k a year, their borrowing is typically below the mean. The average for Stanford, e.g. is around 13k.

In general where you're seeing 100k figures you're either talking about grad students, or huge outliers.

Student loans CAN be discharged in bankruptcy, the issue is that they have been held to a standard for discharge called the "Brunner Test." There are several court cases in progress that could reverse that. There was a study that showed about 1/3 of petitioners who included student loans in bankruptcy saw at least some modification, and that, aside from the high bar of the Brunner test, the other big obstacle to discharge in bankruptcy is that everyone "knows" they're non-dischargeable and so don't bother even trying.

As for 'federally guaranteed loans' which Darrkphoenix describes (#14), that program was called FFEL, and there haven't been any new loans issued under FFEL since 2010. So if you have been in repayment a while, then sure, you probably have federally guaranteed loans issued by a private entity. But the majority of loan dollars out there now, both new and outstanding, are loans issued directly by and owed to the U.S. treasury, albeit serviced by contracting entities, so talking about FFEL now like it's the standard practice is incorrect.

I assume you're talking the raw cost for the courses... Not the rent, food, and other things involved...

I'm reminded going to a convention, and the convention was $50 to attend... And staying at a nearby hotel was $100 a day, plus food (Say $20 a day). 5 days (not including gas, purchases or anything else) cost $650, not the $50 for the actual convention...

I'm reminded of Lindybeige, he talks of how college students should be dirt poor as a life learning lesson... But they aren't... everything is handed to then on a silver platter...

Thanks to the topic contributors for the interestings readings ;)

The level of debt isn't a problem, the problem is that you have to have a degree for most decent jobs and that even for those jobs, the pay doesn't really make up for the debt. And any federal loans you get can't be discharged by bankruptcy, so you pay them eventually regardless of whether or not you can actually afford to pay.

But, there's ways of financing it if your parents don't have it. My employer pays up to $26k for college for part time employees, so you can potentially get a 4 year degree in 5 years and graduate without a ton of debt. Then there's grants and scholarships. Good luck getting any money at all if you're a white man. Nearly all the money goes to women and minorities.

You only get into the 60s for undergrad programs if you include all costs (tuition, room/board, etc.). As far as I know the highest tuition sticker price in the country in 2015 is Vassar at 51k.

Of those in the top 10 in terms of tuition sticker price, most if not all actually provide fairly significant discounts.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2015/09/09/10-private-colleges-and-universities-with-highest-lowest-sticker-prices

That said, there are definitely some institutions/sectors where overborrowing is a significant problem by design.

I believe there are some grad programs (MBA/Law/Med) that cost 60k a year just in tuition, but if you're hearing 60k in reference to an undergrad program, at least for now that's referring to total "cost of attendance."

Yes, it is very difficult to get rid of student loan debt. That is because back when it was treated as any other unsecured debt, thee were people who would go rack up large sums, graduate, then file bankruptcy to wipe the debt. So while this is a factor in the increasing costs, it is likely not a major factor.

There are three primary drivers: Rent seeking behavior on the part of occupational boards, federal subsidies for students (like Pell grants), and anti-discrimination law.

Rent Seeking Behavior: Occupational boards inevitably operate for the best interests of those engaged in the occupation, not the public. It is in the best interests of every current member of an occupation to restrict how many people are allowed into that occupation, as this allows them charge higher rates. The easiest defensible way to accomplish this is through increasing the educational requirements and licensing. This is done because it is an easy sell to the public at large as they can just say they are doing it to 'protect the consumer'. This increases the demand for education as it is now a gateway into a protected occupation.

Federal subsidies: It has been estimated that for every $1 in federal subsidies paid directly to students, tuition increases by $0.50. It is a simple issue of more money chasing a fixed supply leads to an increase in the price of the supply.

Anti-discrimination law is probably the killer though. Due to differences in performance across various protected classes, intelligence tests essentially cannot be used during job applications. So businesses started relying more on formal education as a cheap (for them) low-risk proxy, which dramatically increased the demand. This worked at the time because back then only the best and brightest (or richest) went to college. Of course, now that there is such a push to graduate college, college difficulty has been lowered, so there are way too many numskulls graduating with a bachelors. As a result, the requirements continue to inflate and what was once a high school diploma is now a bachelors and a bachelors is now a masters. This cycle of reduced difficulty, increased volume, and requirements inflating to compensate will continue until the U.S. gets into its idiot head that not everyone can be upper-middle class.

tl:dr: Value is driven by scarcity. Reduce scarcity and you reduce value. We have been increasing the scarcity of decent jobs without a college degree and decreasing the scarcity of college degrees. This is creating the current bubble in higher education.

The real problem is fiat currency and how even real money today isn't considered legal tender. (Those cases where people try to pay others spitefully with pennies and other small denominations.)

While a fiat currency system may eventually collapse, I don't think an economy would collapse; they would just find another way to keep the system going.

2) Meh, the "Bennett hypothesis" despite being 30 years old, generally hasn't been supported by research. There was a report out from the Fed this year that was arguably the first major study to real support a meaningful, broad impact, however I think their design was flawed.

1) If you go back over 30 years, Pell has more or less just increased in value in line with inflation. The impact of tightening laws/regs as well as a less laissez-faire treatment from the courts has certainly had an impact.

3) That I do agree with. It's not just people feeling they need a job, but that during periods of recession people go to college as a replacement, whether because they want to retool/retrain for new employment, or just to access student aid for lack of an alternative. I think one of the flaws in the Fed study noted above, for example, is that a lot of their conclusions derive from the impact of the recession.

By the way, and I should point out, "knowledge is power" (at least that's what I learned from Schoolhouse Rock as a child).

One of the best places for online courses (many of them free) is Coursera. I think they charge if you want to get a certificate of completion or whatnot; however, if you really want to *learn*, it is a great opportunity for people to pick and choose some gratis education.

I took one of the courses and was pretty happy with what I learned --it really did provide new insight into something I did not learn during my college years and it helped me with some of the projects on which I'm currently working.

American here, also with student loan debt. About 19k from undergrad (I had a scholarship) and about 32k from graduate school. The grad school debt was a big mistake that I regret daily. The undergrad - well, I got a good education.

I work with people who only have a high school education. They worked their way to the same position I have. They can afford to have kids - I can't. They can afford to own a house - I can't. That said, I'm not done with trying to use my education to get a better job, but boy oh boy is it oversold on that regard. Experience (and who you know) is what it all comes down to.

The idea is supported by basic economics and Pell grants were merely an example of a direct subsidy. The subsidy just has to be student side, not institution side.


If it was just that, then the bubble should only have been during the recession and not before it. Using data from here on college prices: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76 and plugging it into excel from some quick analysis suggests the following conclusions for 4-year schools:

College costs have been increasing at a rate of about 2.8% a year for the last 30 years, controlling for inflation.

For the 1980s (82-92), 3.19% a year
For the 1990s (92-02), 2.58% a year
For the 2000s (02-12), 2.67% a year

Public institutions grew at a faster rate than private/non-profit (2.84% vs. 2.48%), however in total inflation controlled dollars private went up 17K/year while public only went up 10K/year. (the data isn't explicit if they are measuring per year or per 4 years on the costs. I am inferring they are measuring per year). That gives an average 4 year degree cost increase of 40K for public and 68K for private. So costs have more than doubled.

The recession does not appear to be driving up prices, as just using post recession years (2007-2013) gives a growth rate of 2.03%. So the recession appears to be restraining prices (which runs counter to your implied concern with the 'subsidies increase tuition' study results). However, there does appear to have been a shift from private towards public as public grew 2.95% while private only grew 1%.

wow.... you went math

I'm not an American, but I do study in U.S. and I can say that the 100k $ is not normal. My debt will probably not exceed 25k at least for undergrad and that is because I budget everything and make sure my expenses do not exceed what I can produce. The problem here is that there are in fact people with such huge debts, but that is because they simply suck at managing their finances or their head is so high in the sky they don't even realize the poor decisions they are making.

A good rule of thumb is that if you don't get a full ride scholarship or are rich as hell you don't go to one of the ivy league schools. Simple as that. Yes, a Harvard diploma is nice, and your grades may be great. That will help you get employed the first time and that's it. In the end you'll still have to start from somewhere on the bottom and rise up. And I have seen a lot of great students that were good at learning, but simply sucked in the workforce.

Another problem is housing and food. School as a whole is expensive, but it's not awfully expensive. Here are some examples of terrible behavior that will just put you in debt more and more. One of my dorm mates found out he does't really need 1k that they got on loans. Instead of being smart and paying it back as quickly as possible he thought it's a better idea to get a new laptop in spite of already having a fully functional one, and then lots of food. This is how people get indebted. Another common pattern is seeing people want to live in expensive apartments on the edge of the campus or outside when the dorms are just fine and in the same ballpark money wise, if not cheaper. Some of my friends are paying anything from 700$ to 1100$ a month to live in the luxurious party apartments near the university stadium. I pay about 400$ a month to live in one of the dorms with utilities included and no money needed for transportation.

Don't get me wrong. I like myself video games, consoles, new phones and PCs, nice cars and luxurious clothes, but if that money is not mine, and if I am in debt that's pretty much a no go. It baffles me how reckless people are with money here. They take enormous unsubsidized loans and accrue enormous interest over 4 years and then they wonder how did they end up with so much money in debt.

Best advice I was given in college? Never refuse free food or beer.