Tuition has outpaced inflation at all institutions and the quality hasn't gotten better. This has only happened because we have a student loan system which schools are milking for as much money as they can get. To heck with the consequences for the students who have to pay it back.

Exactly.

So basically your college was paid for and you can't understand why everyone else can't do the same...ok
You are wed to the entitlement mindset that insists that no matter what, people should get free stuff. I had very little debt because I was a scholarship kid who worked and lived in poverty while I was in school. There is NO WAY I would run up the kind of debt kids do, today. The increase in the cost of tuition is not the point - it would have been stupid twenty years ago and insane, today. Although I went to private schools, no way, no how would I have done that if I didn't have good scholarships. IMO, burdening yourself with student debt is totally nuts. There are plenty of ways to make a decent living that doesn't involve running up that kind of debt and just hoping you will get a good job.

As a current law student I can tell you that the source of most of the student frustration is that the much of the high tuition cost is diverted to main campus. It is simply unfair to charge so much for law school when there is little cost for equipment and supplies as compared to the sciences. This is not a "woe is me" commentary, as I knew the cost going into school. I am just stating the student perception.


I suspect that is where the current students are coming from but once they get out on the real world, they will realize that was the least of the problem.

I went through college very cheaply, going local. But I have relatives who seek certain jobs on the east coast where an Ivy League or MIT degree is pretty much the bare minimum to get hired. A local degree was fine for what I wanted to do with my life and career. But I recognize that people who want to work for Google, for example, probably need the benefit of a higher-end education.

I had three kids go to incredibly expensive east coast private law schools so I know a little something about this subject. We helped them get out of undergrad, debt free, but they went on their own dimes back east and ended up with a range of debt based on what they had in savings and scholarships. You can do it smart and you can do it stupid, seems to me. A kid wanting to go work for Google who is willing to indebt themselves for close to $150,000.00 for the "possibility" of working for Google is idiotic, seems to me. That is someone gambling with their future on the basis of a vague notion of, what? There are plenty of ways to make a good life for yourself and starting out in debt that means you have to take a good paying job even if you hate it is asking for disaster.

True, but educational loans aren't even dischargeable in bankruptcy. I feel like they should have the same status as other debts as far a bankruptcy is concerned. If we're going to make the "pay for your mistakes" argument, it should be equally applied to all debts.

Not saying that that was your point, Brian. Just giving my unsolicited opinion.

It is a federal program and those are the rules. There is nothing that keeps someone from getting a loan from a private bank if they want it treated like any other debt. At this point, with kids making noises that they should receive the benefit and not pay it back, as a tax payer, I worry. I worry that it will further cripple our economy and I worry about the future of the program for kids who might benefit from the program in the future. The fact that people make stupid financial decisions - and this is what it amounts to - is liable to end up being the next housing bubble.

If they were, you'd have a rush of students who file for bankruptcy the week after graduating - just because they can. Thankfully, bankruptcy is not the golden ticket for deadbeats it used to be. Not being dischargeable though is just life and the loaners don't hide that fact.

At least three of my son's friends went out and got student loans and then used the money to buy cars and furnish apartment and even go on vacations. I wonder how stupid they are going to feel when it comes time to pay it all back.

I've seen incredible waste on student loan checks, myself. In fact, when I was in school, twenty-five years ago, I ended up getting a student loan and then bought new furniture since the loan was used to pay tuition which meant I had some extra cash sitting around. Not proud of it, trust me. And as bad as that was, it was on a tiny scale compared to what I see, these days. It just brings home to me how easy it is to practice stupid money management, especially when you are young and don't "get" the consequences of that type of behavior. Plus, why should the tax payers give me one penny under those circumstances? I've felt pretty guilty about that, all these years. It was less than $700.00 but it was wrong. And yes, I've contributed to scholarships, partly out of guilt but it taught me how tempting it is to take advantage of a policy that is intended to do good things but is fundamentally susceptible to abuse.

I understand your point, but how is this any different than someone who racks up a lot of credit card debt? Certainly large purchases can be repossessed if the jurisdiction allows, but not the credit spent on living and entertainment. (If the paucity of my knowledge in this area is showing, please feel free to correct. I have yet to have taken bankruptcy coursework, though I intend to, and my only experience in the area is anecdotal from acquaintances.)

Nonetheless, to me, universities are just capitalizing on the unduly elevated status we have given a bachelor's degree in this country, especially at the expense of belittling the trades.

CC debt is personal. Federal student loans are a whole different category.

You are wed to the entitlement mindset that insists that no matter what, people should get free stuff. I had very little debt because I was a scholarship kid who worked and lived in poverty while I was in school.

Where did I mention free? We all know the huge difference in career earnings from degree and high school so no reason to throw out the there are still good jobs bs

Tuition is disgustingly high which straddles middle class and poorer students with $300-$500 monthly payments for the next 10-20 years

Just like I said to Bates...Congrats on getting through w/o debt...Not realistic for a large chunk of high school students looking to better themselves

Where did I mention free? We all know the huge difference in career earnings from degree and high school so no reason to throw out the there are still good jobs bs

Tuition is disgustingly high which straddles middle class and poorer students with $300-$500 monthly payments for the next 10-20 years

Just like I said to Bates...Congrats on getting through w/o debt...Not realistic for a large chunk of high school students looking to better themselves

There is debt and there is ridiculous debt. The problem for many is that many are taking on ridiculous debt because they choose an expensive, private college or because they are borrowing to cover living expenses they could reduce if they had to. There are other options to get an education frequently not even considered by kids who assume all they need is a hotshot degree or that think they HAVE to spend this much to have a decent life.

Where did I mention free? We all know the huge difference in career earnings from degree and high school so no reason to throw out the there are still good jobs bs

Tuition is disgustingly high which straddles middle class and poorer students with $300-$500 monthly payments for the next 10-20 years

Just like I said to Bates...Congrats on getting through w/o debt...Not realistic for a large chunk of high school students looking to better themselves

It was totally realistic to get through law school debt free twenty years ago. Today? Not so much unless you are a trust fund baby or have had a successful first career which leaves you with ~100K in spending money.

PQ is coming off as lecturing the young and dumb from her position of experience and authority. Trouble is, she probably paid ~$100/credit hour for her law school; not $1,000.

It was totally realistic to get through law school debt free twenty years ago. Today? Not so much unless you are a trust fund baby or have had a successful first career which leaves you with ~100K in spending money.

PQ is coming off as lecturing the young and dumb from her position of experience and authority. Trouble is, she probably paid ~$100/credit hour for her law school; not $1,000.

Mid, I am not sure why you feel the need to attack me.

You seem to be taking this fairly personally as if I am criticizing you and I believe you completely miss the point. I don't know if you read what I wrote, closely, but I haven't said much that is controversial or particularly radical. The gist of my comments have been that I approve of the student loan program but kids, being kids, are quite likely to get in over their head. You seem to want to make an issue that law school now costs more than when I went so I should STFU. If you had read carefully you'd have noted that I was a scholarship student. Even so, you are making a huge, erroneous leap to think I would have only had to pay $100.00 an hour and I honestly am not sure where you pulled that number out of the hat. Or why you are motivated to go in that direction.

The fact is, where I differed from so many young kids is that I WASN'T 22/23 years old with no kids and the notion that going into debt to go to school was just the price you pay and it would all be fine - I'd get a good job, make big money, and the student loan was no big deal. For that matter, a lot of kids are committing to enormous student loans on their undergrad and they are still teen agers when they are making those kinds of decisions. IMO, it is crazy.

In contrast, I was an older student who had been firmly in the lower middle class/upper lower economic class for all my adult life. We were barely making ends meet as it was. My kids were eligible for reduced lunches and my oldest was set to graduate from high school the same year I would have graduated law school. So that meant that as soon as I got out of law school, I would have had his college expences, followed by his sister's a couple of years later - with a third one not far behind that. I would have had to give up my teaching job to attend law school and rely on my husband's salary with three kids - two in high school - and that absolutely would not have been in the cards. I had been an adult working and paying attention to how the world worked long enough to understand that not everyone who graduates automatically gets a good job at a high salary. And in a poor economy, that likelihood is even less.

When I first started looking at law school, OCU was the only one I could attend due to my family obligations. OU was too far to commute and moving my kids wasn't going to happen. But for the kids, I surely would have made the move closer to Norman because the costs at OU were nothing compared to OCU. But in any event, absent a good scholarship, there is no way I could have afforded OCU's tuition without massive student loans, and I had a very good idea what sort of financial disaster we'd be facing with student loans on top of other life's expenses. A 22 year old can tell herself that it will all work out and she'll get a good job. A mother of three who understands what life actually costs is going to be far, far more conservative about gambling with her family's financial future. There is no way I would have even considered going into debt to pay student loans for law school, even back then. No way. Believe me, we looked at it six ways from Sunday. I had no connections to the legal community and, in fact, was the first member of my family to even go to college. I didn't have anyone waiting to give me a hand up in terms of finding a job.

You seem to think that things have changed to the point where it is just not the same situation and that people in years past didn't have the same problems that you have. I disagree. Granted, tuition continues to skyrocket but that doesn't mean it wasn't pretty much out of reach at private schools for most people back in the day absent a trust fund or a scholarship or crushing student loan debt. As a student, I recall thinking that someone must either have connections to a good job in the legal field or be a complete fool to go into that much debt. But for a scholarship that paid for just about everything, I would not have gone to law school. And that wouldn't haven't have been the end of the world. And although you seem convinced that things are completely different, now, I have to tell you that you are mistaken. As an alum, I was called in to counsel students about taking out student loans - it was a big concern even back in the dark ages. The kids were maxing out their student loans and heading for financial disaster. Even the professors were feeling guilty about it.

I repeat, for many kids, the student loan debt just isn't real. Yet. Many of them haven't had to pay for kids or a mortgage or even an electric bill. All they know is that they will have a degree and they are optimistic that they will get a good job, right away, love the job and the student loan will get paid, no problem. Alternatively, they are convinced that if they DON'T go to college and get that degree, they are a failure and will die alone and broke, and all their friends will pity them. There is intense pressure on kids to do this and I just hate that.

You seem to have taken this quite personally and I am sorry you are taking it that way. From what I gather, you have some connections in the legal field to help you get established, you don't have young children and you have made decisions based on what you believe you can afford. Everyone has to make their own decisions but I hate to see what is happening to many people who make decisions that are just out and out nuts, especially if they are doing it because they feel pressured to get a degree, or because they are just naive.

What is the current rate that schools skim off the top of every loan for "processing fees"? Is it 10% or is it more?

What is the current rate that schools skim off the top of every loan for "processing fees"? Is it 10% or is it more?

They aren't called processing fees. They are computer fees, adminstrative fees. Every school is different.

I don't see how this is Wall Street's fault? The government took over student loans and the government manages the schools. Tuition is based on state/federal funding (pell grants) and the school. Not Wall Street!

Also, the government gave the bailouts not Wall Street. The banks accepted them from the Democrat controlled President, House, and Senate. Somehow people forget this. Also, most banks paid back the loans with interest. The banks also got hammered with new legislation that makes them fill out books of paperwork for loans.

Why aren't they protesting the Fed's monetary policy that is causing inflation or Obama's failed Stimulus package, or his regulations that have kept banks from lending? WHY? Because these people have no idea why they are there, and what is causing them to be unemployed. They just know that Obama gives them unemployment.

You seem to think that things have changed to the point where it is just not the same situation and that people in years past didn't have the same problems that you have. I disagree. Granted, tuition continues to skyrocket but that doesn't mean it wasn't pretty much out of reach at private schools for most people back in the day absent a trust fund or a scholarship or crushing student loan debt.

Yeah, it is MUCH different. Despite your claims, even adjusted for inflation, costs are far higher. Most scholarships don't even cover full tuition. That opportunity probably would never have existed for you today. And these days, we're not even talking about law school debt, we're talking about crushing debt for undergrads. I had a scholarship for my undergraduate degree, worked as many as three jobs at a time and graduated from undergrad debt free. I know several lawyers your age who were able to go to law school part time and pay their tuition at OCU Law back when it was in the old barracks buildings. Unless you can find a part-time job making about $60K/year, paying tuition bills as they come just isn't remotely realistic anymore.

This whole older/wiser/smarter act is just silly. With respect to the comparative cost of education, you were born on third base and are acting like you hit a triple.

The young people of the past knew everything about everything and never made any mistakes. That's why they are in a place to pass harsh judgement on today's young folks.

Everybody knows that today's young people are all bad while today's old people were held up as paragons of virtue by older folks "back in the day."

For example, I remember listening to my grandparents say, "those hippies are such nice young men and women. Why can't all young folks burn down ROTC buildings and smoke marijuana, tune in, turn on, and drop out."

I don't even remember my grandfather buying a pistol because he was concerned the "yippies" were going to try and take over his ranch.

Yup, we can all look up to old folks today and know they always did the right thing, no generation measures up to them, and you can't trust anybody under 60 because we all suck.



Yes, the young people of the past were totally different from today's young people

The young people of the past knew everything about everything and never made any mistakes. That's why they are in a place to pass harsh judgement on today's young folks.

Everybody knows that today's young people are all bad while today's old people were held up as paragons of virtue by older folks "back in the day."

For example, I remember listening to my grandparents say, "those hippies are such nice young men and women. Why can't all young folks burn down ROTC buildings and smoke marijuana, tune in, turn on, and drop out."

I don't even remember my grandfather buying a pistol because he was concerned the "yippies" were going to try and take over his ranch.

Yup, we can all look up to old folks today and know they always did the right thing, no generation measures up to them, and you can't trust anybody under 60 because we all suck.



Yes, the young people of the past were totally different from today's young people

I guess you missed the part where I said that when I made my decisions, I wan't a young person and that made the difference. Apparently, you also missed the point that I said young people of any era are more subject to making poor financial decisions for the reasons given. And I guess you missed the part about how when I was in law school, or shortly thereafter, the problem with massive student loans and foolish choices was already a huge problem. No one said young people were smarter back in the day, EO. Quite the opposite.

Yeah, it is MUCH different. Despite your claims, even adjusted for inflation, costs are far higher. Most scholarships don't even cover full tuition. That opportunity probably would never have existed for you today. And these days, we're not even talking about law school debt, we're talking about crushing debt for undergrads. I had a scholarship for my undergraduate degree, worked as many as three jobs at a time and graduated from undergrad debt free. I know several lawyers your age who were able to go to law school part time and pay their tuition at OCU Law back when it was in the old barracks buildings. Unless you can find a part-time job making about $60K/year, paying tuition bills as they come just isn't remotely realistic anymore.

This whole older/wiser/smarter act is just silly. With respect to the comparative cost of education, you were born on third base and are acting like you hit a triple.

Mid, where have you gotten the idea that I am arguing that it was just as expensive back in the day? Seriously. Go back and find where you based that premise. I never said that, never thought that. I have had nothing but sympathy for the kids who get in over their head. I merely point out that tuition and student loans have been a problem for a very long time and has only gotten worse. I have agreed with you that the schools take advantage. Why has your hostility crossed the line into just picking a fight? It would be different if I had taken the attitude that back in "my" day, kids didn't make stupid decisons. I haven't done that, what so ever. Quite the opposite. You are simply making things up that I never remotely suggested and then insulting me on top of it. For that matter, how could I possibly be unaware of the high costs of law school tuition when I had three kids go on to become lawyers and deal with paying for private school with and without scholarships within the past ten years?

As for your comment that I was born on third base and act like I hit a triple? How so? How is being a teenaged mother with three kids before I ever started college and a husband who was a janitor constitute being born on third base? I worked my butt off for the scholarships and grades. You are attempting to suggest that those sorts of scholarships I received were commonplace when I went to lawschool, apparently in an attempt to marginalize me and my comments. If you are interested, all three sections had a total of 5 full ride Hatten Sumner Scholarships and 12 other scholarships that were less prestigious and lacked the stipend but paid most of the rest of tuition. I was fortunate enough to get one of the scholarships and all of us studied and worked day and night to keep them because we knew if we lost the scholarship, we couldn't continue to attend. 11 of the top 12 graduates was a major scholarship recipient and all of us worked summers and at least the last two years in law school like most law students. Some of us were brilliant (I wasn't one of them) but all of us were hard working and understood how lucky we were compared to our friends. Each one of us could have gotten into a more prestigious lawschool (OCU is not exactly top tier) but none of us were willing to shell out the horrible student debt that would have gone along with a fancier pedigree.

Side question: Do you guys think it would be smart to implement some sort of money managing class in either high school or college?

Not to tell you what to do with your money but the positives and negatives of doing different things with it. As well as consequences or successes that comes with those decisions. I would like to think that if kids/young adults were just aware of what could happen, that would go a long way in decision making.

And yes I took Dave Ramsey's class.

Side question: Do you guys think it would be smart to implement some sort of money managing class in either high school or college?

Not to tell you what to do with your money but the positives and negatives of doing different things with it. As well as consequences or successes that comes with those decisions. I would like to think that if kids/young adults were just aware of what could happen, that would go a long way in decision making.

And yes I took Dave Ramsey's class.

Yes! It should be a class for managing money, but also the basics in investments as well. Learn why compound interest is the next wonder of the world.

Side question: Do you guys think it would be smart to implement some sort of money managing class in either high school or college?

Not to tell you what to do with your money but the positives and negatives of doing different things with it. As well as consequences or successes that comes with those decisions. I would like to think that if kids/young adults were just aware of what could happen, that would go a long way in decision making.

And yes I took Dave Ramsey's class.

I think some of them already do that and, yes, I think it is a very good idea.

I think part of the problem has been that society has taken the attitude that college is the only real acceptable option if you are intelligent and want to succeed. Even when some of us give a nod to the trades, it is generally in the context of, "Not everyone is cut out for college," which is kind of a back handed comment. When I hear of a smart young person who says he or she can't afford college, I have, historically, been among the first one to tell them they simply "must" go to college as they are "college material." No one likes to see a bright person denied college due to cost and all of us want to see someone better themself. I expecially feel that way when I see a poor kid who is trying to pull herself up from a poor economic background. And I was the worst offender with my own kids, I admit it. These days, I still tend to feel that way with poor kids because I realize that many of them are stopped, not so much by finances, but because they haven't had role models to show them that it is not only possible, but often a good investment. But, again, that is only if they don't get so much debt they drown, i.e., community college or state schools vs. Ivy league in the absence of a scholarship. I am starting to feel differently about middle class kids who know they could go to college but really don't want that lifestyle or think it is just too ridiculously expensive. It has, to my way of thinking, become a very reasonable choice, even for intelligent people. We are living in an information age where many of the humanities, economics and other ways to become educated in liberal arts areas aren't limited to four year universities. They won't be engineers but it isn't like the old days where the farm kids needed to go to college to learn the basics of modern living.

I think things started to go bad a few decades ago when middle class kids were all aimed at college and the universities got a taste of the money. With easy student loans, the kids were a little like people with health insurance who don't really worry about the cost because they weren't paying it - and universities gobbled up the money. Big business. With so many kids out of work with crushing debt, and with so many college degreed kids who really don't enjoy the work but are trapped because they have bills to pay, I've had to rethink my priorities and values on the subject. But I must confess to a bit of snobbery on my part in that I still see "community college" as not "really" college (even though that is where I went my first 2.5 years).

I've about decided that unless you want to teach at the university level (and have that temperament) or you want to make connections to the well connected, it just isn't worth it to go to a private school if you have to pay for the whole thing on your own nickle. And this is giving a nod to Mid that I agree it has gotten more expensive (where he and I part company is that he seems to believe you "have" to go into debt as a result and I am of the opinion that it isn't worth it to many of us and I'd skip it altogether or look for a cheaper alternative). For kids, it is a big deal when they get into a good college and it is fun for the parents to brag on their kids (been there, done that) - but at the end of the day, that is an emotional rush. Going that route opens many doors but also closes others and everyone needs to open their eyes and try to be clear headed on what they want out of life and what they are willing to do to achieve it.

Personal finance is already a requirement in many colleges. Probably most. Unfortunately it's usually taught by people who make it about as engaging as watching paint dry and who rail on and on about over-regulation as though the Clean Air Act was the worst thing about the last century.

Yes I took a "personal finance" class my freshman year at Tulsa, where the only thing we learned was to calculate monthly mortgage payments and credit card debt. WTF?! Heard of similar classes at OU. That's not the type of class that needs to be taught.

There is definitely merit to pondering the moral issues and personal responsibility issues on an individual level, but that doesn't change reality on a macro level. The fact is that until something changes dramatically, for-profit and private schools are going to charge outrageous tuition, and students who are either oblivious to what's going on or just overly optimistic about their prospects with a sociology degree from Mackie Brown University, are going to max out their loans for 4-5 years, then establish a lifetime of debt repayment with the Dept. of Education.

We even know that if these kids were educated and understood their options, lots would still do the dumb thing and max out those loans anyhow. It's human nature. Condemning it and bemoaning the foolish youth is akin to kicking the can down the road.

Default rates are going up, not down, and sooner or later, this is going to be a problem for all of us, not just the few who bit off way more than they could chew.

They aren't called processing fees. They are computer fees, adminstrative fees. Every school is different.

I don't see how this is Wall Street's fault? The government took over student loans and the government manages the schools. Tuition is based on state/federal funding (pell grants) and the school. Not Wall Street!

Also, the government gave the bailouts not Wall Street. The banks accepted them from the Democrat controlled President, House, and Senate. Somehow people forget this. Also, most banks paid back the loans with interest. The banks also got hammered with new legislation that makes them fill out books of paperwork for loans.

Why aren't they protesting the Fed's monetary policy that is causing inflation or Obama's failed Stimulus package, or his regulations that have kept banks from lending? WHY? Because these people have no idea why they are there, and what is causing them to be unemployed. They just know that Obama gives them unemployment.

Call em what you want, they are still skimming. The rest of your post had zero relevance to my question.

BTW, what is the current rate of inflation? Also seems as if most of the GOP and allies forget it was a GOP president and his Treasury Secretary that came for the money that was known as TARP.

Seems like this article was inspired by this thread

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-why-baby-boomers-don-t-understand-the-protests.html

I am, in other words, part of what could be called the Clueless Generation. The Clueless Generation is made up of middle-aged, professionally successful people, who grew up in a nation that featured a mostly thriving economy, low-cost higher education, and some minimal commitment to economic justice. As a consequence, we graduated from school with little or no debt, got good jobs that featured real possibilities for advancement, and have on the whole ended up doing very well for ourselves.

A lot of us have also become insufferably smug and complacent. Over the past year I was lucky enough to be jolted out of my own smugness and complacency by a series of painful encounters with recent law-school graduates. I began to investigate the question of how many law graduates were getting jobs as lawyers, and discovered that a shocking percentage—more than half—were not.

Since I went to law school in the 1980s, the cost of legal education has quadrupled in real terms, thereby ensuring most current law students will graduate with six figures of debt from law school alone. Meanwhile legal employers are downsizing and outsourcing, to the point where the ratio between new lawyers and new jobs for lawyers is approximately two to one. And most of the new jobs don’t pay enough to allow even those who are lucky enough to get them to pay their educational debts.

For the still largely unacknowledged crisis in legal education merely mirrors the vastly larger crisis in our society as a whole. Millions of young adults are graduating from college and professional schools with massive amounts of educational debt—debt that, thanks to sweetheart legislative deals that lined the pockets of bankers, cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. In just the past decade, total outstanding educational debt in America has risen more than five-fold, from $180 billion to nearly $1 trillion. Meanwhile, the international crisis of global capitalism has led employers large and small to do everything possible to cut labor costs. This has produced the current 15 percent official unemployment rate among Americans in their 20s. (The real unemployment rate is far higher, since the government counts people as unemployed only if they did zero hours of paid work in the past week and have been actively seeking employment at some point in the last four weeks.)

What the Clueless Generation finds difficult to comprehend is that literally millions of highly educated and hardworking young Americans—people who followed all the rules and did everything we told them to do—are either severely underemployed or have no jobs of any kind. Meanwhile, they struggle with the massive educational debts they incurred after the baby boomers decided that access to the bargain-priced higher education from which we benefited wasn’t so important after all.

Some of the Occupy OKC people are on COX Ch 20 now at the Council Meeting.

Looks like they want permit fees waived and permits extended.

They are averaging only about 3-4 people now...

They are averaging only about 3-4 people now...

They claim 50.

They claim 50.

It's Wall Street math. Three each hour equals 72 protestors a day, less the ones they know slip off for snacks and naps.
Final count = 50.

I walked by yesterday and I counted 7.

Seems like this article was inspired by this thread

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-why-baby-boomers-don-t-understand-the-protests.html

I am, in other words, part of what could be called the Clueless Generation. The Clueless Generation is made up of middle-aged, professionally successful people, who grew up in a nation that featured a mostly thriving economy, low-cost higher education, and some minimal commitment to economic justice. As a consequence, we graduated from school with little or no debt, got good jobs that featured real possibilities for advancement, and have on the whole ended up doing very well for ourselves.

A lot of us have also become insufferably smug and complacent. Over the past year I was lucky enough to be jolted out of my own smugness and complacency by a series of painful encounters with recent law-school graduates. I began to investigate the question of how many law graduates were getting jobs as lawyers, and discovered that a shocking percentage—more than half—were not.

Since I went to law school in the 1980s, the cost of legal education has quadrupled in real terms, thereby ensuring most current law students will graduate with six figures of debt from law school alone. Meanwhile legal employers are downsizing and outsourcing, to the point where the ratio between new lawyers and new jobs for lawyers is approximately two to one. And most of the new jobs don’t pay enough to allow even those who are lucky enough to get them to pay their educational debts.

For the still largely unacknowledged crisis in legal education merely mirrors the vastly larger crisis in our society as a whole. Millions of young adults are graduating from college and professional schools with massive amounts of educational debt—debt that, thanks to sweetheart legislative deals that lined the pockets of bankers, cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. In just the past decade, total outstanding educational debt in America has risen more than five-fold, from $180 billion to nearly $1 trillion. Meanwhile, the international crisis of global capitalism has led employers large and small to do everything possible to cut labor costs. This has produced the current 15 percent official unemployment rate among Americans in their 20s. (The real unemployment rate is far higher, since the government counts people as unemployed only if they did zero hours of paid work in the past week and have been actively seeking employment at some point in the last four weeks.)

What the Clueless Generation finds difficult to comprehend is that literally millions of highly educated and hardworking young Americans—people who followed all the rules and did everything we told them to do—are either severely underemployed or have no jobs of any kind. Meanwhile, they struggle with the massive educational debts they incurred after the baby boomers decided that access to the bargain-priced higher education from which we benefited wasn’t so important after all.

Yes, perfect. The "clueless generation." The insufferable smugness of the baby boomers, as the article describes, really is over the top. While my field, law, is probably the best example of the problems created by the education industry, everyone else is standing on the brink. As schools make less and less money off of their law schools (which have been used as profit centers at places such as OCU), undergraduates will have to pay more and more just for their bachelor's degrees. Greed is good until it breaks the system that fed and protected it.

I graduated from undergrad debt free. I now pay as much for student loans as I do on my mortgage. I know that was the deal and I had a job waiting for me. I didn't know anyone else in that same boat though. I'm doing the 10-year payout, most of my classmates were either wealthy or had wealthy parents who wanted to pay their tuition going in or are deferring or paying it out for 20 years. I know some lawyers who got their law degrees in the 80s who are still paying, and as the article says, tuition has quadrupled since then.

On the one hand, we can say freedom = taking responsibility for your actions, therefore, these people knew or should have known the deal prior to signing up and it's their fault. On a micro level, that's just fine, but what happens when you take that attitude with millions of students who are defaulting on their student loans and the taxpayers are being forced to make the Dept. of Education whole? Is the "let them eat cake" mentality going to work forever?

The default on loans is more a result of the bad economy than the price of education. The students went in when the economy was good and came out when the economy is in shambles with no sign of recovery.

The problem is a result of education's prices not adjusting to the economy. Professors didn't get pay cuts, but the students did (less student jobs and higher tuition and to pay professors). If the government didn't run the schools we wouldn't have this problem. If the free market ran the schools and student loans. Tuition would be adjusted to meet the demand. If the students couldn't pay, they don't enroll. The school has less students, so they either charge more or less. Once the supply/demand equilibrium is met then we would see the prices adjusted to meet the economic price of education.

If schools were 100% a private enterprise their costs would be insanely higher and their attendance would be insanely lower. You're trying to make a whole generation of people who belong in the 1800's with that plan, LA. Also, your inbox is full.

The default on loans is more a result of the bad economy than the price of education. The students went in when the economy was good and came out when the economy is in shambles with no sign of recovery.

So in a good economy, someone could afford to go $100K into debt for a sociology degree?


The problem is a result of education's prices not adjusting to the economy. Professors didn't get pay cuts, but the students did (less student jobs and higher tuition and to pay professors). If the government didn't run the schools we wouldn't have this problem. If the free market ran the schools and student loans. Tuition would be adjusted to meet the demand. If the students couldn't pay, they don't enroll. The school has less students, so they either charge more or less. Once the supply/demand equilibrium is met then we would see the prices adjusted to meet the economic price of education.

And if you're wanting to talk about for-profit education, those are the most expensive schools and their quality is dreadful.

The professor would be paid based on the amount of students in his class. So, he would have to charge a rate that students would be willing to pay.

Do I need to teach an Econ class for you guys?

Will it open with an explanation of how an educated person could claim that 9-9-9 isn't regressive?

The professor would be paid based on the amount of students in his class. So, he would have to charge a rate that students would be willing to pay.

Do I need to teach an Econ class for you guys?

Oh this is your plan? A quality education doesn't work that way. It shouldn't be profit-driven as that tends to shift the focus to how many students we can teach and what's the max we can charge them vs. how many students can be here before quality suffers and what's the most affordable we can make an education.

I got a chance in undergrad to interview an outgoing Chancellor of the Board of Regents for higher ed. His proudest achievement? He actually had a laminated 8x12 to illustrate it. He had kept the price of a public education in Oklahoma much lower than our peer states while the quality remained on par. The double digit increases started happening right after his retirement. Public education can be preserved and can work and can be affordable if it's in the right hands and there's no public investment with a higher return on investment than in education.

All the twists and turns and gyrations and finger pointing at who is spending the school money and who is evil enough to have not been born in this era when it is so expensive, isn't doing one thing to fix the problem.

We have way too many people willing to subsidize higher education, either through going into debt to their eyeballs, or being willing to let parents rob their retirement accounts in hopes that will help beloved Junior have a good life. Higher Education is big business and if you don't think they are spending money as fast as they can get it, you haven't walked through the hallowed halls of most colleges and universities.

It is one thing to go into debt when there are jobs but these days, there aren't. Going into that sort of debt simply because you don't know what else to do or picking a degree that isn't really marketable or likely to result in a high income is like buying a house you can't rent, can't sell and can't live in.

Everyone always thinks they are going to be the one to win the job lottery because that is human nature. But what I don't understand is spending astronomical amounts for private schools where a public school will do just about as well. Granted, if you have a very tailored career goal, it might make a difference but commentators have been pointing out that the private college emperor lacks clothes for years, now.

Oklahoma, like many states, has excellent programs for lower income kids to go to state schools if their parents are on the ball enough to get them signed up years in advance. Good luck with that. They need to really get the word out, better, IMO. Nationally, about 28% of adults of a sufficient age have college degrees and the governments are always trying to raise that. My suggestion is that people take a look at the state budget for 2012 and take a gander at the program after program after program designed to remediate people who aren't prepared for college - most with an eye to make the able to succeed in college. Then take a look at the remedial classes most colleges have to try to salvage many of the students who have gone into debt to attend and are still unable to adequately read and write. Then look at the actual graduation rates. They're pitiful, even for the kids who can read and that isn't just Oklahoma.

If these kids can't read and write by the time they are going to college, I think it is ridiculous to think they can make intelligent decisions about whether they should mortgage their future for a degree. It upsets me when kids get in over their heads because it is liable to make their lives more difficult. But it makes me furious when schools take money via student loans from kids who can barely read and they know that, statistically, they are unlikely to even graduate. Just my opinion. Student loans are a cash cow for universities who can keep upping tuition and costs because people are mortgaging their future. Agreed, it can be a very good investment but it can also amount to buying gum, on interest.

PQ, this epidemic of public universities taking money from unprepared students just doesn't exist. There are entrance requirements (ACT scores) for all public schools. With an insufficient ACT, you can be admitted on probation and have to take remedial courses. I hardly think that's irresponsible.

That said, if you want to go to a for-profit? Just fill out your FAFSA? Entrance requirements? schmentrice requirements! Everyone gets in. They just want money.

PQ, this epidemic of public universities taking money from unprepared students just doesn't exist. There are entrance requirements (ACT scores) for all public schools. With an insufficient ACT, you can be admitted on probation and have to take remedial courses. I hardly think that's irresponsible.

That said, if you want to go to a for-profit? Just fill out your FAFSA? Entrance requirements? schmentrice requirements! Everyone gets in. They just want money.

The for-profits just want money, you betcha. The students are often trading a cow for magic beans without the fairy tale ending.

But notwithstanding the ACT, etc., the graduation rate for unprepared students is dismal and I think they should be more candid in counseling these kids. IMO, it is like taking candy from a baby.

The for-profits just want money, you betcha. The students are often trading a cow for magic beans without the fairy tale ending.

But notwithstanding the ACT, etc., the graduation rate for unprepared students is dismal and I think they should be more candid in counseling these kids. IMO, it is like taking candy from a baby.

I work with lots of college kids in one of my volunteer roles. I can tell you that some are prepared and got in on their ACT scores and there are also some who even though they had their test scores and a decent GPA and whatnot (which I have access to), they are very obviously too immature to handle the responsibility of showing up to class when you're supposed to.

Academic preparation is part of it, maturity is another big part of it. Show me a kid flunking out of college and I'll show you a kid who doesn't go to class.

This Occupy thing is driving me nuts. If you want to protest something, register to vote and change things through elections.That's about the only way that you can voice your opinions where it actually counts. No one is going to care if I sit in a park for hours, or picket a business.

This Occupy thing is driving me nuts. If you want to protest something, register to vote and change things through elections.That's about the only way that you can voice your opinions where it actually counts. No one is going to care if I sit in a park for hours, or picket a business.

It is a tactic that unions use. That is where the liberals get most of their tactics.

This Occupy thing is driving me nuts. If you want to protest something, register to vote and change things through elections.That's about the only way that you can voice your opinions where it actually counts. No one is going to care if I sit in a park for hours, or picket a business.

Getting a TON of media play (especially the Wall Street) right now so it seems to be pretty damn effective

This Occupy thing is driving me nuts. If you want to protest something, register to vote and change things through elections.That's about the only way that you can voice your opinions where it actually counts. No one is going to care if I sit in a park for hours, or picket a business.

I would disagree. While voting is certainly a powerful and often unutilized tool, organized mass protest can be very effective too. Several businesses will tell you, from experience, mass protest can cost dearly. Plus, these protests often spill over and heavily influence elections. I personally discovered the power of some fliers and a vinyl wrapped van and some media attention during a certain DA race years ago.

It is a tactic that unions use. That is where the liberals get most of their tactics.

The Tea Party is liberal? Aren't they showing up and protesting, too?

This Occupy thing is driving me nuts. If you want to protest something, register to vote and change things through elections.That's about the only way that you can voice your opinions where it actually counts. No one is going to care if I sit in a park for hours, or picket a business.
I HOPE YOU LEARNED YOUR LESSON, MLK.

yep

I work with lots of college kids in one of my volunteer roles. I can tell you that some are prepared and got in on their ACT scores and there are also some who even though they had their test scores and a decent GPA and whatnot (which I have access to), they are very obviously too immature to handle the responsibility of showing up to class when you're supposed to.

Academic preparation is part of it, maturity is another big part of it. Show me a kid flunking out of college and I'll show you a kid who doesn't go to class.
Truth.

The Tea Party is liberal? Aren't they showing up and protesting, too?

The camping out and not leaving is a liberal tactic. Look at what they did in Wisconsin. The Tea Party people aren't camped out there.

I HOPE YOU LEARNED YOUR LESSON, MLK.

yep

What lesson? They haven't taught us anything!

Whoosh

Your inbox is full again.

If voting was an effective tool, corporations would have agitated for that right of "personhood" as well. Voting for change is highly overrated.

Voting for change is highly overrated.

I couldn't agree with you more. Look what change got us! More debt, more unemployment, more wars, and class warfare!

Voting for change is highly overrated.

I have a few friends in the military who would disagree heartily. They're out now. They can talk to everyone about who they are like normal people. They can have a facebook with personal information on it. Their lives have changed a large amount for the better. Don't be so pessimistic! : P

I couldn't agree with you more. Look what change got us! More debt, more unemployment, more wars, and class warfare!

:congrats:

Getting a TON of media play (especially the Wall Street) right now so it seems to be pretty damn effective

That's only because people are looking at it like a fatality traffic accident. Honestly the days of protest actually inspiring major change are long gone. There have been too many people crying over problems motivated people solve on their own with the tools that readily available. If you think Corporate America and Wall Street our the root of America's problems than put your money where your mouth is and boycott everything that has a direct link to Wall Street. I find it odd when people complain about evil corporations and then take a big swig from a Starbucks Cup and break out their iphone to take a call. Let's face it without the business community iphones and most electronic devices would be not existent. Not to mention many of these folks protesting where the same ones protesting when many major companies were looking at failing. They were demanding the government give the companies money to stay afloat. After all GM and BOA were too big to fail. The cardinal rule of Capitalism is survival of the fittest. Had the government stayed out of it I think we would be sitting better off today. Sure a few companies would have died but others would have been born out of the ashes of those companies. The answer to failing companies should have never been corporate bailouts. The answer from Uncle Sam should have been help the people re-train and/or relocate to where jobs where in abundance. The assistance could been issued in tax discounts and loans paid back to the government in the form of reasonable monthly payments or community service hours.

Let's face it bad decisions and lack of motivation to be competitive with other businesses lead to the failures in corporate America. Detroit fell asleep at the wheel and allowed foreign automakers hand their butts to them. Had they made the effort to court foreign car buyers GM, Dodge and Ford would continue to dominate the auto market. Instead they chose cookie cutter commuter cars and trucks while Toyota, Honda and the others were surveying their customers to find out exactly what kind of car they wanted and making a strong effort to build quality vehicles while keeping costs to reasonable number. In my opinion Ford is the only one still in the running. They are building cars that cater every customer under the sun. They are making fuel efficient cars and they are still making the favorites such as the mustang and the f-series truck. Chrysler is going through an identity crisis and GM continues to build cookie cutter cars that look like every other manufactures cars. The Camaro is a throwback that most people decide not buy when they find out the bulk of them sold are V6 engines not V8's. (Sure the V8 is available however your better be ready to pay big bucks for a car that will be worth half of the sticker price in 5 years.) The volt looks like the Camaro, a Toyota Camry and a Honda Accord mated and viola the volt was born. If it were a child the parents would have jumped off the roof of the hospital the moment it was born.

If voting was an effective tool, corporations would have agitated for that right of "personhood" as well. Voting for change is highly overrated.

Maybe if these people wouldn't buy everything these corporations have to sell the corporations might change. Right now, these people are just as likely to hand cash to the corporations as anyone else. And the young ones, even more so.

Individuals cannot possibly have enough information to make that plan an effective way to get corporations to stop doing the awful things they do. Hell, most of you can't even see it when an industry is damned by the entire scientific community. And you think masses of people would/could take it a step further and boycott a low-price alternative? You're living in crazyville.

Thank goodness it hasn't yet come to this.
Especially here in The Heart O' The Heartland . . .

q24j4FqQsYY

Way too much drama.