Should anything be done for graduate/professional students?

winston53660 said:

Please stop this. People in the arts do make money. We work in advertising agencies museums as art therapists creating layouts fo rthe web video game art work toys and much more Some of us happen to make very good money. One of my friends is a creative director for a very famous designer now who use to employ Brook Sheilds.

I do however agree with you that the cost of grad is outrageous. I know this from my days a NYU.

Click to expand...

I apologize. I have nothing against the arts nor do I intend on degrading the field.

My main point is kids who "follow their hearts" and obtain degrees in the arts because it's what they enjoy (not that it's bad to do something you like, but economic viability must also be factored in), but are not economically viable and cannot find jobs utilizing their skills (hence the analogy of working minimum wage with an undergrad degree, they cannot find employment in their field). I apologize if my comments seemed harsh or degrading. I'm sure students obtaining a graduate degree in the arts can sympathize as they must also pay pretty much completely by loans to fund their post undergrad education. My main premise is that I don't think it's fair for undergrads, especially in fields that aren't as viable, to get all the aid and subsidized loans while grad students are essentially farmed out to be the net payers into the system.

Aunt Spiker said:

The number of students selecting expensive schools and degree programs that they cannot even partially cover out of pocket is what's insane.

If you don't want to shoulder the burden of the debt = don't accept the loan terms. . . or don't go to an excessively expensive school.

Click to expand...

There is really no such thing as an inexpensive school for pharmacy, medicine or law. That's why the average (among private and public institutions) is above $100,000.

I have said before that given the current costs I weigh that paying and earning my degree is better, but I still think that grad students shouldn't be left to dry with no aid while others get some.

digsbe said:

There is really no such thing as an inexpensive school for pharmacy, medicine or law. That's why the average (among private and public institutions) is above $100,000.

I have said before that given the current costs I weigh that paying and earning my degree is better, but I still think that grad students shouldn't be left to dry with no aid while others get some.

Click to expand...

Stafford loans are subsidized.
You're getting aid if you use these.

digsbe said:

I apologize. I have nothing against the arts nor do I intend on degrading the field.

My main point is kids who "follow their hearts" and obtain degrees in the arts because it's what they enjoy (not that it's bad to do something you like, but economic viability must also be factored in), but are not economically viable and cannot find jobs utilizing their skills (hence the analogy of working minimum wage with an undergrad degree, they cannot find employment in their field). I apologize if my comments seemed harsh or degrading. I'm sure students obtaining a graduate degree in the arts can sympathize as they must also pay pretty much completely by loans to fund their post undergrad education. My main premise is that I don't think it's fair for undergrads, especially in fields that aren't as viable, to get all the aid and subsidized loans while grad students are essentially farmed out to be the net payers into the system.



There is really no such thing as an inexpensive school for pharmacy, medicine or law. That's why the average (among private and public institutions) is above $100,000.

I have said before that given the current costs I weigh that paying and earning my degree is better, but I still think that grad students shouldn't be left to dry with no aid while others get some.

Click to expand...

Yes - that type of work is in high demand and it's intense schooling; truly costs a pretty penny even at the more 'affordable' schools. . . everyone should know that and be aware before they commit to the schooling discipline.

Common sense = research and that includes *future* terms of loan repayment.

Why would schools want to try to lower costs if students are indebt to a bank and not paying much out of pocket? What's the incentive for the schools to drop their rates and fees (which is where it really flies out the roof - not just credit hour cost)?

digsbe said:

I apologize. I have nothing against the arts nor do I intend on degrading the field.

My main point is kids who "follow their hearts" and obtain degrees in the arts because it's what they enjoy, but are not economically viable and cannot find jobs utilizing their skills (hence the analogy of working minimum wage with an undergrad degree, they cannot find employment in their field). I apologize if my comments seemed harsh or degrading. I'm sure students obtaining a graduate degree in the arts can sympathize as they must also pay pretty much completely by loans to fund their post undergrad education. My main premise is that I don't think it's fair for undergrads, especially in fields that aren't as viable, to get all the aid and subsidized loans while grad students are essentially farmed out to be the net payers into the system.



There is really no such thing as an inexpensive school for pharmacy, medicine or law. That's why the average (among private and public institutions) is above $100,000.

I have said before that given the current costs I weigh that paying and earning my degree is better, but I still think that grad students shouldn't be left to dry with no aid while others get some.

Click to expand...

Digsbe I think you are a bright young man with the fortitude to have a bright future and rewarding life. Just don't forget about the forest for the tree and don't let your head get to big. I made both those mistakes and you probably will too. Knowing more being better educated has that effect I think. I do know that you are a caring person though.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Stafford loans are subsidized.
You're getting aid if you use these.

Click to expand...

Not in graduate school. This year they did away with subsidized loans and now all of them are ubsub. They still remain in undergrad though.

My premise is not that I should not pay or that I am somehow owed free education. My premise is that I don't think it's right to fund undergrads and provide aid while graduate students heap massive amounts of debt and have aid completely rescinded.

I think there's a lot of misconception about subsidizing "useless" grad programs, like History PhD. Most of the programs I've heard of, at least the top ranked ones, offer full tuition, plus thousands and health care, for teaching undergrads. They can do that also because the school's endowment is huge. So I've met many who continue their education because it's the best option in a lousy economy. Even law and med school can be largely offset at top programs, so it's kind of an inverse of you get what you pay for.

Keep in mind too that sometimes the individual is entirely blameless, as when the recession hit, and people were in the middle of law school. What can they do then? They were *screwed* and employers won't come back to them if/when the market recovers. There is a huge amount of risk in starting down the path to $100k+ in loans though, with what we know now. Especially when that's not gonna be a top program, like I said. As with undergrad, I think some colleges will shut down once people catch on, if this trend continues. Debt = no spending power = economy tanks. It's bad for everyone

digsbe said:

Not in graduate school. This year they did away with subsidized loans and now all of them are ubsub. They still remain in undergrad though.

My premise is not that I should not pay or that I am somehow owed free education. My premise is that I don't think it's right to fund undergrads and provide aid while graduate students heap massive amounts of debt and have aid completely rescinded.

Click to expand...

Graduate students were once, all undergrads.

I don't see how it's unfair.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Graduate students were once, all undergrads.

I don't see how it's unfair.

Click to expand...

Because once you transition you lose pretty much everything and are given higher interest loans that are not subsidized. I think if we are going to fund higher education it isn't right to throw money at all undergrads indiscriminately while doing nothing for grad students who are accruing massive amounts of debt. But then again I have always been more liberal when it comes to education. I think investing in education is a net positive for the country and helps the needy better themselves (especially when the alternative is being on welfare/government aid forever). What I personally feel is unfair is how graduate students are essentially the net payers into the system while undergrads are offered money at no cost to them (through state/federal aid and subsidized loans). We give, they take. As far as federal loans go we pay more and receive less while they receive more and pay less and I think it should be equal for everyone. I also compound this with the personal opinion that most graduate degrees benefit the country while many undergrad degrees are not economically viable. I'm not saying that the free aid is wrong, but I don't think it's right to only offer this to undergrads and have grad students funding more and receiving less.

Like I said, would it be fair for healthcare professionals to drastically increase the cost of healthcare in response to their increased personal burden of student loans? Tuition goes up drastically.

digsbe said:

Because once you transition you lose pretty much everything and are given higher interest loans that are not subsidized. I think if we are going to fund higher education it isn't right to throw money at all undergrads indiscriminately while doing nothing for grad students who are accruing massive amounts of debt. But then again I have always been more liberal when it comes to education. I think investing in education is a net positive for the country and helps the needy better themselves (especially when the alternative is being on welfare/government aid forever). What I personally feel is unfair is how graduate students are essentially the net payers into the system while undergrads are offered money at no cost to them (through state/federal aid and subsidized loans). We give, they take. As far as federal loans go we pay more and receive less while they receive more and pay less and I think it should be equal for everyone. I also compound this with the personal opinion that most graduate degrees benefit the country while many undergrad degrees are not economically viable.

Like I said, would it be fair for healthcare professionals to drastically increase the cost of healthcare in response to their increased personal burden of student loans? Tuition goes up drastically.

Click to expand...

There are a fair share of grad degrees that are just as stupid to obtain.

The cost of tuition will not go down, with further subsidization.
Unsubsidized Stafford loans, is a misnomer, they're still subsidized.

Did you take grant money and aid, when you were an undergrad?
Why are you complaining, now that you just got into grad school?

Investing in education, is just like anything else.
There is such a thing as too much.

Taxes would have to go up to pay for further subsidization, so either way, someone pays.
It's just much more efficient to have the borrower pay.

Harry Guerrilla said:

There are a fair share of grad degrees that are just as stupid to obtain.

The cost of tuition will not go down, with further subsidization.
Unsubsidized Stafford loans, is a misnomer, they're still subsidized.

Did you take grant money and aid, when you were an undergrad?
Why are you complaining, now that you just got into grad school?

Investing in education, is just like anything else.
There is such a thing as too much.

Taxes would have to go up to pay for further subsidization, so either way, someone pays.
It's just much more efficient to have the borrower pay.

Click to expand...

I'm expressing my beliefs, I don't view it as "complaining." My main problem is that under current funding undergrads get all of it. If the premise is aiding students in education I don't think it's right to focus on others while grad students become the net payers with no aid and more interest/no subsidized loans. I have accepted the terms as they exist today, but I don't think it's right that all funding essentially goes to undergraduate students and graduate students get nothing most likely under the premise that we can afford to take out the loans and will pay them back. I almost feel used and I think it's akin to raising taxes on the rich to pay for the social programs of the poor. The government can do what it wants, but I don't like the idea that they will fund certain students while giving no aid to others because "you'll make six figures, you can pay it back. Student X is going to school to major in Icelandic literature and will take 6 years to do so while costing us $90,000. He can't afford to pay for his education solely by loans."

Education is an investment. I'm not asking that it be free, I'm asking that education funding should be more fair with grad students not seen as the net payers because we will make more. It should be equal regardless of what you major in or what level of degree you are getting. I fully expect to payback my debts as this is the right thing to do. However, I don't like being tossed under the buss because I'l be able to pay it back while others will not due directly to their career/major choices.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Seeing that people are already getting a pretty damn sweet deal, with access to thousands of dollars, with nary any credit history and an under market interest rate.
I think enough has been done for students.

Click to expand...

I'm paying on student loans right now, and, as I start to make more, I pay more. It was my choice to take the loans and it's my responsibility to pay them back.

digsbe said:

Grad plus loans are based on credit, and you cannot erase student loans by declaring bankruptcy. The feds can also garnish wages to pay back loans.

I see it as the fed's way of milking money from students :shrug: They figure grad students will make 6+ figures one day and can pay all that back.

Click to expand...

Digs, all financial institutions try to loan money only to those they believe can someday pay it back. That's why a credit history is so important in the first place.

digsbe said:

I'm expressing my beliefs, I don't view it as "complaining." My main problem is that under current funding undergrads get all of it. If the premise is aiding students in education I don't think it's right to focus on others while grad students become the net payers with no aid and more interest/no subsidized loans. I have accepted the terms as they exist today, but I don't think it's right that all funding essentially goes to undergraduate students and graduate students get nothing most likely under the premise that we can afford to take out the loans and will pay them back. I almost feel used and I think it's akin to raising taxes on the rich to pay for the social programs of the poor. The government can do what it wants, but I don't like the idea that they will fund certain students while giving no aid to others because "you'll make six figures, you can pay it back. Student X is going to school to major in Icelandic literature and will take 6 years to do so while costing us $90,000. He can't afford to pay for his education solely by loans."

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're already getting a good deal.
The interest rate for your education, is already below what a lot of people pay for real property (aka, a house).
You have no down payment requirement, no credit necessary (for stafford loans), etc.

The cost of graduate school is much more than the cost of undergrad.
The risk is higher to the lender and the people actually footing this are others, who're working.
Many of whom, have never had the benefit of subsidized student loans.

Like I said before man, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
You're being treated pretty well.

The total cost of the loans you have, will be minor compared to your lifetime earnings.
A lot of the people, who've subsidized your loans through taxes, will never earn the same amount as you have.
I think you're taking too much of this for granted.

X Factor said:

Digs, all financial institutions try to loan money only to those they believe can someday pay it back. That's why a credit history is so important in the first place.

Click to expand...

Student loans do not operate like this though. Stafford is assessed based on personal aid, not credit (grad plus loans are based on credit). Is it right that funding goes to all undergrads regardless of major/GPA while no funding goes to graduate students under the premise that "they can afford to pay it, let's give all the money to those who cannot directly due to their career choices." Should grad students get any aid aside from loans?

What can be done for graduate and professional students. First of all, stop lying to them about the nature of the reality that awaits them. Graduate and professional schools should stop stealing their money.

45,000 people will graduate from law school this year with a per capita indebtedness of $150,000. Only half of them will have the opportunity to practice law. Many of these young would be lawyers were lied to about their prospects, and induced to make investments that are foolish from a cost/benefit standpoint. These lies are a crime imo.

I think the interest rates on student loans should be a low as possible and run through the government, not banks. Banks should not be profiting from this. 6.8% is very high Digs, higher than the current mortgage rates too.

I agree for more funding for grad schools. There are many professions, for instance, teaching, that require a masters or higher, in order to be gainfully employed or keep employed.

The debt incurred by our college students is bracing. Yes they will ultimately benefit from higher paying jobs, but how terrible to have such an anchor around their necks when they are just starting out in life.

Gina said:

I think the interest rates on student loans should be a low as possible and run through the government, not banks. Banks should not be profiting from this. 6.8% is very high Digs, higher than the current mortgage rates too.

I agree for more funding for grad schools. There are many professions, for instance, teaching, that require a masters or higher, in order to be gainfully employed or keep employed.

The debt incurred by our college students is bracing. Yes they will ultimately benefit from higher paying jobs, but how terrible to have such an anchor around their necks when they are just starting out in life.

Click to expand...

6.8% is not high at all.
Especially for people with unproven or thin credit histories.

Mortgages, at least, are backed by real property.
The only thing student loans have going for them, is that they're non bankruptable.

digsbe said:

Student loans do not operate like this though. Stafford is assessed based on personal aid, not credit (grad plus loans are based on credit). Is it right that funding goes to all undergrads regardless of major/GPA while no funding goes to graduate students under the premise that "they can afford to pay it, let's give all the money to those who cannot directly due to their career choices." Should grad students get any aid aside from loans?

Click to expand...

If education is, as you say, an investment for the government then there has to be some expectation of a return on that investment, doesn't there? They advance you the money because they think you're a good investment but, once you start making money (that you would not have made but for the degree), I don't see it at all unreasonable for them to expected to be paid back with interest.

Harry Guerrilla said:

There are a fair share of grad degrees that are just as stupid to obtain.

The cost of tuition will not go down, with further subsidization.
Unsubsidized Stafford loans, is a misnomer, they're still subsidized.

Did you take grant money and aid, when you were an undergrad?
Why are you complaining, now that you just got into grad school?

Investing in education, is just like anything else.
There is such a thing as too much.

Taxes would have to go up to pay for further subsidization, so either way, someone pays.
It's just much more efficient to have the borrower pay.

Click to expand...

The difference though is that this is government lending, not private lending dictated by the market. The nature of the loans is different. I cannot erase my debt with bankruptcy, is follows me. Not only this, but they can garnish my wages and force payment. You cannot simply quit paying, the nature of the loans are not the same.

Let me ask this, why should undergrads get free money (aid) and subsidized loans, while grads get no free money (no aid) and no subsidized loans? My belief is that graduate students, he receive basically nothing, should be given aid and interest rates should be lower or loans subsidized just like in undergrad. I don't think it's right that grad students must pay more in interest while others do not. What if the gift horse says "you get to ride for free" to undergrads and then says "you'll provide me with the feed if you want me to carry you."

Again, I'm all about repaying loans, but I don't support taking advantage of those who will be able to pay back by offering no aid, higher interest, and higher fees while those who will make less/be charged less interest may not be able to. The government bailed out credit card debts, mortgages and banks. Yet grad students are left to pay everything at high interest with no form of debt easement (more minimal risk to the lender). I just think grads should be given aid like undergrads and that it's not right to deny aid to someone because they will be able to payback one day while shoveling the money to someone else because they cannot pay back/cannot handle your interest rate. I view this as being akin to increasing taxes on the wealthy/middle class to pay for the social programs of others that refuse to work. The mentality of "you pay more and get less so that someone else can get more and not pay as much" isn't right to me.

Harry Guerrilla said:

6.8% is not high at all.
Especially for people with unproven or thin credit histories.

Mortgages, at least, are backed by real property.
The only thing student loans have going for them, is that they're non bankruptable.

Click to expand...

I think the non-bankruptable aspect is the key along with being forced to pay out of your wages. You cannot erase that debt, they are guaranteed their money as long as you work. Bankrupting on debts is one of the major risks. If someone can get a mortgage rate on a home for 4% why can't I be allowed to get the same on student loan debt of equal value? Really the only way to ever avoid paying it back is to never work and earn money which isn't going to happen, I'm not sure but I think the government may also be able to seize your assets to pay back the loans. Do I think there should be no interest? No, but I think it should be lower (around 1-5%) and I do not think the federal government should be in the business of making money off students. Like I said, my main problem is the government using grad students to make money off of us in order to fund others that they will not make as much on/make less on (people who receive net aid surpassing their interest payments).

digsbe said:

The difference though is that this is government lending, not private lending dictated by the market. The nature of the loans is different. I cannot erase my debt with bankruptcy, is follows me. Not only this, but they can garnish my wages and force payment. You cannot simply quit paying, the nature of the loans are not the same.

Click to expand...

Of course they can stop paying.
There are many, unemployed students, who have defaulted on their loans.

digsbe said:

Let me ask this, why should undergrads get free money (aid) and subsidized loans, while grads get no free money (no aid) and no subsidized loans? My belief is that graduate students, he receive basically nothing, should be given aid and interest rates should be lower or loans subsidized just like in undergrad. I don't think it's right that grad students must pay more in interest while others do not. What if the gift horse says "you get to ride for free" to undergrads and then says "you'll provide me with the feed if you want me to carry you."

Click to expand...

You got the same aid, as an undergrad, that all other undergrads get.
Graduate school is much more expensive, which represents a greater risk to the lender.

digsbe said:

Again, I'm all about repaying loans, but I don't support taking advantage of those who will be able to pay back by offering no aid, higher interest, and higher fees while those who will make less/be charged less interest may not be able to. The government bailed out credit card debts, mortgages and banks. Yet grad students are left to pay everything at high interest with no form of debt easement (more minimal risk to the lender). I just think grads should be given aid like undergrads and that it's not right to deny aid to someone because they will be able to payback one day while shoveling the money to someone else because they cannot pay back/cannot handle your interest rate. I view this as being akin to increasing taxes on the wealthy/middle class to pay for the social programs of others that refuse to work. The mentality of "you pay more and get less so that someone else can get more and not pay as much" isn't right to me.

Click to expand...

Seriously, 6.8% is not, "high interest" for loans with no collateral, borrowers with no or little credit history and no down payment.
That's a joke.

I think you need more experience in the world, before you start saying these things.
The market alternative to student loans, with no cosigner, is interest rates at least double, which accrue interest immediately and require a thorough credit check.

digsbe said:

I think the non-bankruptable aspect is the key along with being forced to pay out of your wages. You cannot erase that debt, they are guaranteed their money as long as you work. Bankrupting on debts is one of the major risks. If someone can get a mortgage rate on a home for 4% why can't I be allowed to get the same on student loan debt of equal value? Really the only way to ever avoid paying it back is to never work and earn money which isn't going to happen, I'm not sure but I think the government may also be able to seize your assets to pay back the loans. Do I think there should be no interest? No, but I think it should be lower (around 1-5%) and I do not think the federal government should be in the business of making money off students. Like I said, my main problem is the government using grad students to make money off of us in order to fund others that they will not make as much on/make less on (people who receive net aid surpassing their interest payments).

Click to expand...

Mortgages are backed by real property and down payments.
Not only that, but many of these people have much more substantial credit histories, than students.

Graduate and undergraduate students are being subsidized by tax payers, not by graduate student interest.

Gina said:

I think the interest rates on student loans should be a low as possible and run through the government, not banks. Banks should not be profiting from this. 6.8% is very high Digs, higher than the current mortgage rates too.

I agree for more funding for grad schools. There are many professions, for instance, teaching, that require a masters or higher, in order to be gainfully employed or keep employed.

The debt incurred by our college students is bracing. Yes they will ultimately benefit from higher paying jobs, but how terrible to have such an anchor around their necks when they are just starting out in life.

Click to expand...

Gina, if it wasn't for the loans some of us might not have a ship to anchor in the first place (I think I lost myself somewhere in the metaphor. :lol.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Of course they can stop paying.
There are many, unemployed students, who have defaulted on their loans.

Click to expand...

When they start working they must pay on them. You cannot default in the sense of going bankrupt and having it erased. At least not with grad school debt.

You got the same aid, as an undergrad, that all other undergrads get.
Graduate school is much more expensive, which represents a greater risk to the lender.

Click to expand...

No we don't. Like I said, undergrads get subsidized loans and free money to them, get do not.

Seriously, 6.8% is not, "high interest" for loans with no collateral, borrowers with no or little credit history and no down payment.
That's a joke.

I think you need more experience in the world, before you start saying these things.
The market alternative to student loans, with no cosigner, is interest rates at least double, which accrue interest immediately and require a thorough credit check.

Click to expand...

You can refinance for interest rates in the 3% bracket. There is absolutely no way for a student to do this with student loans. The government is not a private bank or private lender. What they make on me is pure profit for them. I may not have tangible property, but I do have my income which is garnished by the feds if I don't make payments that are expected of me. I cannot default on those loans. If I work, my loans kick in. If I don't work, my interest builds up. The government bailed out credit cards, mortgages and banks. Student loan debt now surpasses credit card debt and will only increase. Tuition goes up, loans go up, students in the long run suffer more. Tuition for grad school was nothing like this 10 years ago or 20 years ago. More debt is required for private and public. There will be a bubble burst eventually and the economy and nation will suffer. Financially speaking, why should undergrad degrees get lower interest rates and subsidized interest when future employment and repayment are more uncertain, while graduate loans are more expensive and depending on the field repayment is certain with the debtor making 6+ figures upon graduation? Isn't it more sound to give the lower interest rate to the latter and not the former?

My main premise is that the funding should be more equal for grads and undergrads. I personally don't think it's right that grad students are made out to be the net payers to carry the slack of others.

Digs, you know that the only thing subsidized in a subsidized loan is interest while in school, right? You're still obligated to pay those back and interest does start accruing once you graduate.

digsbe said:

When they start working they must pay on them. You cannot default in the sense of going bankrupt and having it erased. At least not with grad school debt.

Click to expand...

True, for good reason too.
The interest rates and credit terms are very generous.

digsbe said:

No we don't. Like I said, undergrads get subsidized loans and free money to them, get do not.

Click to expand...

Stafford loans are still subsidized.
You would never, and I mean never, get a 6.8% interest rate for a student loan, in the private market.

digsbe said:

You can refinance for interest rates in the 3% bracket. There is absolutely no way for a student to do this with student loans. The government is not a private bank or private lender. What they make on me is pure profit for them. I may not have tangible property, but I do have my income which is garnished by the feds if I don't make payments that are expected of me. I cannot default on those loans. If I work, my loans kick in. If I don't work, my interest builds up. The government bailed out credit cards, mortgages and banks. Student loan debt now surpasses credit card debt and will only increase. Tuition goes up, loans go up, students in the long run suffer more. Tuition for grad school was nothing like this 10 years ago or 20 years ago. More debt is required for private and public. There will be a bubble burst eventually and the economy and nation will suffer.

Click to expand...

I can refinance the terms of a mortgage if, I have decent credit (which includes a whole bunch of other factors like, DTI, payment history, the pressence of negative credit items, etc.) and enough equity.

digsbe said:

My main premise is that the funding should be more equal for grads and undergrads. I personally don't think it's right that grad students are made out to be the net payers to carry the slack of others.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, no student should get any aid.
The taxpayer is picking up the slack of students.