Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"This analysis yields the following tips for graduating with an undergraduate degree and no debt:
Enroll at an in-state public college. 85% of undergraduate students who graduate with no debt
graduated from public colleges, with almost 78% enrolled in an in-state public college. State
appropriations help public colleges keep tuition low for state residents.
Do not enroll at a for-profit college. Less than 7% of students enrolled in for-profit colleges
graduated with no debt, compared with 30% at non-profit colleges and 51% at public colleges.
Enroll in a 2-year or shorter program. Half of students who graduate with no debt graduated
from a community college. (A third graduated from a public 4-year college.) 61% of students
receiving an Associates degree from a public college graduated with no debt. 68% of students
receiving a Certificate from a public college graduated with no debt. This compares with slightly
more than a third of students receiving a Bachelors degree.
Enroll in a low-cost college. 88% of students who graduate with no debt graduated from a
college with tuition and fees under $10,000. 57% graduated from a college with a total cost of
attendance under $10,000 and 86% graduated from colleges with a total cost of attendance under
$20,000.
Spend less on textbooks. Three quarters of students who graduate without debt spent $1,000 or
less per year on textbooks.
Live at home with your parents. Students who live at home with their parents are more likely to
graduate without debt than other students. (Better to have a child live at home while enrolled in
college than to be forced to live at home after graduating from college because of too much debt.)
Choose your parents wisely. 56% of upper-income undergraduate students graduated with no
debt, compared with 36% of low-income students and 45% of middle-income students. Students
whose parents have advanced degrees are more likely to graduate without debt, probably because
their parents have higher average income. More than two thirds of students who graduated
without debt receive help paying for tuition and fees from their parents. A small percentage of - 2 -
students graduated with no federal or private student loan debt because their parents borrowed
from the Parent PLUS loan program instead."
http://www.fastweb.com/nfs/fastweb/static/PDFs/Graduating_without_debt.pdf
Here's one more:
ROTC....
.....imagine going to college with the idea of serving your country, rather than looking to have your neighbors pay for your college.....
It says right at the end of your stats that more than 2/3 of those who graduated without debt did so because they received assistance from their parents. Well, no kidding. That changes the whole equation. Again, we're not talking about that. We're talking about people still having the capability to put themselves through college by means of their own working income without taking out loans to do so. I'm not saying it's still not possible to do in some cases, but the point is that it's becoming incredibly more difficult to pull off because of the rapidly rising costs of higher education. as it was 20 or 30 years ago.
I've been talking about that too. And used examples to show how it may be tough and require personal sacrifice, but it is still quite doable to put yourself thorugh he local state university. Most especially if you live in a state college town. After considering all the pros and cons, my granddaughter helped her parents out by opting to live at home and go to the local junior college for the first two years. She also took as many courses as she could get on line from West Texas A&M where she intended to get her degree.
She is now at WT A&M and will easily finish there in two years or less. Because of how they did it, using her savings from work and with help from her parents, she will not have a large amount of student loans by the time she graduates. We all have been willing to help her, but it was compoletely doable if she had had to do it on her own too.
As I said to PC, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's nowhere near as easy as it was for the prior generation. College costs have inflated exponentially compared to the average working wage for the past ten to twenty years and the easy availability of student loans is the primary reason for it. It's a catch 22.
[Certainly it usually requires longer to work your way through a four-year college degree than it used to and a great deal of reason for that is government meddling intended to make it easier for kids to go to school. If the government would get out of it, we would see the costs for education and just about everything else the government meddles in go down significantly.
Look, there are a dozen ways to reduce debt vis-s-vis college.
Did you find any of the suggestions impossible?
Or merely unpalatable.
You seem to believe that one must have what one wishes when one wishes.....
That's not necessarily the way life goes. Nor should it.
" It's nowhere near as easy..."
Thomas Paine ... 'What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.'
He's speaking of efforts, not money.
No support for the bolded and absolutely nothing at all to ever suggest the second.
Are we conceding that the Government is the solution to our rising educational costs?
"This analysis yields the following tips for graduating with an undergraduate degree and no debt:
Enroll at an in-state public college. 85% of undergraduate students who graduate with no debt
graduated from public colleges, with almost 78% enrolled in an in-state public college. State
appropriations help public colleges keep tuition low for state residents.
Do not enroll at a for-profit college. Less than 7% of students enrolled in for-profit colleges
graduated with no debt, compared with 30% at non-profit colleges and 51% at public colleges.
Enroll in a 2-year or shorter program. Half of students who graduate with no debt graduated
from a community college. (A third graduated from a public 4-year college.) 61% of students
receiving an Associates degree from a public college graduated with no debt. 68% of students
receiving a Certificate from a public college graduated with no debt. This compares with slightly
more than a third of students receiving a Bachelors degree.
Enroll in a low-cost college. 88% of students who graduate with no debt graduated from a
college with tuition and fees under $10,000. 57% graduated from a college with a total cost of
attendance under $10,000 and 86% graduated from colleges with a total cost of attendance under
$20,000.
Spend less on textbooks. Three quarters of students who graduate without debt spent $1,000 or
less per year on textbooks.
Live at home with your parents. Students who live at home with their parents are more likely to
graduate without debt than other students. (Better to have a child live at home while enrolled in
college than to be forced to live at home after graduating from college because of too much debt.)
Choose your parents wisely. 56% of upper-income undergraduate students graduated with no
debt, compared with 36% of low-income students and 45% of middle-income students. Students
whose parents have advanced degrees are more likely to graduate without debt, probably because
their parents have higher average income. More than two thirds of students who graduated
without debt receive help paying for tuition and fees from their parents. A small percentage of - 2 -
students graduated with no federal or private student loan debt because their parents borrowed
from the Parent PLUS loan program instead."
http://www.fastweb.com/nfs/fastweb/static/PDFs/Graduating_without_debt.pdf
Here's one more:
ROTC....
.....imagine going to college with the idea of serving your country, rather than looking to have your neighbors pay for your college.....
It says right at the end of your stats that more than 2/3 of those who graduated without debt did so because they received assistance from their parents. Well, no kidding. That changes the whole equation. Again, we're not talking about that. We're talking about people still having the capability to put themselves through college by means of their own working income without taking out loans to do so. I'm not saying it's still not possible to do in some cases, but the point is that it's becoming incredibly more difficult to pull off because of the rapidly rising costs of higher education. It's nowhere near as easy as it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Are we conceding that the Government is the solution to our rising educational costs?
Is that a serious question? If you actually have to ask that I suggest you back and read through the thread again.
."This analysis yields the following tips for graduating with an undergraduate degree and no debt:
Enroll at an in-state public college. 85% of undergraduate students who graduate with no debt
graduated from public colleges, with almost 78% enrolled in an in-state public college. State
appropriations help public colleges keep tuition low for state residents.
Do not enroll at a for-profit college. Less than 7% of students enrolled in for-profit colleges
graduated with no debt, compared with 30% at non-profit colleges and 51% at public colleges.
Enroll in a 2-year or shorter program. Half of students who graduate with no debt graduated
from a community college. (A third graduated from a public 4-year college.) 61% of students
The difference is that Obama wants to make sure you're in debt, Romney wants to make sure you're employed.
It's a difference in living a government centered life or a real life
It's sad seeing people make partisan stupid comments as you just did.
You can always go fuck yourself if you don't like it
Do you think colleges would drop their rates if the interest is raised?
Or do you think that my son will be screwed?
I figure it's the latter...
In the long term, yes, they will. When less people are able to afford going to school, the demand for higher education will decrease. School will have no choice but to start lowering their tuition to get their enrollment back up. This is the only way the problem will be solved and it's going to be the ultimate result regardless of what action the government takes.
Yup. The free market works in education as well as it does anywhere else. If the federal government pulled all its support for education and forced colleges and universities to depend on student enrollment and philanthropy in order to survive, the costs come down in short order.
As far as those student loans go, for those who actually get a marketable education, a $40 or $50k student loan debt is pretty easy to pay off. For those who major in typewriter maintenance or general studies, maybe less so. The choice is always in our hands however.
And in answer to Jillian's question, yes, only those who can afford to go to the most expensive colleges and universities should go to the most expensive colleges and universities. Just as those who can't afford a million dollar home--which by the way Michelle and Barack Obama did while paying off those oppressive student loan debts--should choose a more modest home. (Which my husband and I did.)
The world does not owe us a fine house or expensive car or a cadillac education. Those are things we work for to afford for our kids or which we pay the necessary dues to acquire for ourselves. I got my education by earning an academic scholarship and otherwise working while going to school. I don't feel the least bit deprived because I could only afford a state university or that I didn't have anybody paying my bills for me.
Barack Obama says that his family were of limited means and unable to help him. He also says he got some help along the way but never says where he got it. (Those records are sealed.)
But for him to say that his student loans were a 'burden' is utterly ridiculous.
In the long term, yes, they will. When less people are able to afford going to school, the demand for higher education will decrease. School will have no choice but to start lowering their tuition to get their enrollment back up. This is the only way the problem will be solved and it's going to be the ultimate result regardless of what action the government takes.
Yup. The free market works in education as well as it does anywhere else. If the federal government pulled all its support for education and forced colleges and universities to depend on student enrollment and philanthropy in order to survive, the costs come down in short order.
As far as those student loans go, for those who actually get a marketable education, a $40 or $50k student loan debt is pretty easy to pay off. For those who major in typewriter maintenance or general studies, maybe less so. The choice is always in our hands however.
And in answer to Jillian's question, yes, only those who can afford to go to the most expensive colleges and universities should go to the most expensive colleges and universities. Just as those who can't afford a million dollar home--which by the way Michelle and Barack Obama did while paying off those oppressive student loan debts--should choose a more modest home. (Which my husband and I did.)
The world does not owe us a fine house or expensive car or a cadillac education. Those are things we work for to afford for our kids or which we pay the necessary dues to acquire for ourselves. I got my education by earning an academic scholarship and otherwise working while going to school. I don't feel the least bit deprived because I could only afford a state university or that I didn't have anybody paying my bills for me.
Barack Obama says that his family were of limited means and unable to help him. He also says he got some help along the way but never says where he got it. (Those records are sealed.)
But for him to say that his student loans were a 'burden' is utterly ridiculous.
Wisdom 101.
I didn't come from a wealthy family. I joined the Army, later, attended a community college and completed my degree at a state university, holding down a job all the way there. Back then, the Army paid a much smaller percentage of the cost in exchange for one's service.
Things would have been easier had I worked hard enough to get a scholarship, but while my grades were acceptable, I was a mediocre student, too busy playing sports and chasing girls. Live and learn. But the Army manned me up, and I had to bust my ass to catch up with my peers at the collegiate level.
My wife and I have done just fine and can afford to send our children to a private school, but I want them to work for it too. It never occurred to me that I was owed an education or that I should saddle myself with a mountain of debt in order to get one. We raised our children with the same understanding.
If all candidates legally seal their records, the nation will be ruined. I think we need to pass transparency laws so that the public has access to records of those who run for President.I actually watched the vid on it, and absolutely no pandering can be derived from the situation. You, though, are pandering to the far right shibboleths here.
Taking care of that silliness, I can move to noting that MR (correctly) wants an extention on the low-interest college student loans.
Attempting to lump himself in with the common folk and their situations of struggle.. while he was making what he tries to label everyone else now as 'rich'... that is indeed pandering
It's a campaign gimmick of course and therefore forgivable. All candidates use campaign gimmicks to get elected. Romney has been struggling for a message through this entire campaign period, and I think as of Tuesday night he had finally honed in on a theme that will resonate with those who don't want a leftwing clueless person in the White House.
Or is Obama clueless?
Why didn't he want to go on to serve at the Supreme Court which his credentials at Harvard would have given him a foot in the door? Who would turn down that opportunity in favor of a poorly defined 'private law practice' and some sort of 'community work'? Nothing in his background or activities suggest he has any altruistic motives of any kind.
Or has he been groomed from the beginning--put into all those prestigious schools by design? By whom? We don't know. The record is sealed.
And was the intent to return to Illinois based on the promise that the strings had already been pulled for him to enter the Illinois State legislature? For Michelle to receive a double six figure salary for which she had zero expertise or training. And a million dollar house would be made magically possible? And from there election to the U.S. Senate? And from there the Presidency? Who else with as thin credentials as Obama possesed, no family with any connections, a poor kid of limited means and strapped with a huge college debt and an extremely thin resume would have enjoyed such a meteroic rise?
We'll never know. The records are sealed.
If all candidates legally seal their records, the nation will be ruined. I think we need to pass transparency laws so that the public has access to records of those who run for President.Attempting to lump himself in with the common folk and their situations of struggle.. while he was making what he tries to label everyone else now as 'rich'... that is indeed pandering
It's a campaign gimmick of course and therefore forgivable. All candidates use campaign gimmicks to get elected. Romney has been struggling for a message through this entire campaign period, and I think as of Tuesday night he had finally honed in on a theme that will resonate with those who don't want a leftwing clueless person in the White House.
Or is Obama clueless?
Why didn't he want to go on to serve at the Supreme Court which his credentials at Harvard would have given him a foot in the door? Who would turn down that opportunity in favor of a poorly defined 'private law practice' and some sort of 'community work'? Nothing in his background or activities suggest he has any altruistic motives of any kind.
Or has he been groomed from the beginning--put into all those prestigious schools by design? By whom? We don't know. The record is sealed.
And was the intent to return to Illinois based on the promise that the strings had already been pulled for him to enter the Illinois State legislature? For Michelle to receive a double six figure salary for which she had zero expertise or training. And a million dollar house would be made magically possible? And from there election to the U.S. Senate? And from there the Presidency? Who else with as thin credentials as Obama possesed, no family with any connections, a poor kid of limited means and strapped with a huge college debt and an extremely thin resume would have enjoyed such a meteroic rise?
We'll never know. The records are sealed.
Those who do shameful things should not be running the country, and the only way to tell is to look at what they did when young. If it's that bad, they have no business in positions of public trust.
Otherwise, we're just a nation of people being used by phonies to extract wealth, power, and prestige from the media's negligence in the face of criminals having their way with robbing the people for their pleasure and play money on the backs of taxpayers.
Some of them already want records of people running for office to be public-accessible. Nobody wants a guy who murdered his family, got off with juvenile laws and set free at age 21, gets a job, hires a lawyer to seal his records, then runs for high public office and wins.If all candidates legally seal their records, the nation will be ruined. I think we need to pass transparency laws so that the public has access to records of those who run for President.It's a campaign gimmick of course and therefore forgivable. All candidates use campaign gimmicks to get elected. Romney has been struggling for a message through this entire campaign period, and I think as of Tuesday night he had finally honed in on a theme that will resonate with those who don't want a leftwing clueless person in the White House.
Or is Obama clueless?
Why didn't he want to go on to serve at the Supreme Court which his credentials at Harvard would have given him a foot in the door? Who would turn down that opportunity in favor of a poorly defined 'private law practice' and some sort of 'community work'? Nothing in his background or activities suggest he has any altruistic motives of any kind.
Or has he been groomed from the beginning--put into all those prestigious schools by design? By whom? We don't know. The record is sealed.
And was the intent to return to Illinois based on the promise that the strings had already been pulled for him to enter the Illinois State legislature? For Michelle to receive a double six figure salary for which she had zero expertise or training. And a million dollar house would be made magically possible? And from there election to the U.S. Senate? And from there the Presidency? Who else with as thin credentials as Obama possesed, no family with any connections, a poor kid of limited means and strapped with a huge college debt and an extremely thin resume would have enjoyed such a meteroic rise?
We'll never know. The records are sealed.
Those who do shameful things should not be running the country, and the only way to tell is to look at what they did when young. If it's that bad, they have no business in positions of public trust.
Otherwise, we're just a nation of people being used by phonies to extract wealth, power, and prestige from the media's negligence in the face of criminals having their way with robbing the people for their pleasure and play money on the backs of taxpayers.
You are 100% right, but Congress will never pass such laws.
Does anyone else find his attempt to link with the 'common man' a bit off??
Basically, I guess he is trying to say he is the same as others and 'struggled' with things such as student loans
Obama: I only paid off my student loans eight years ago | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
But this seems a bit weird... supposedly he paid them all back just 8 years ago.. and struggled to do so... yet his salary history shows that even as far back as 2000, he was pulling in more than 240K per year... is he seriously trying to compare to a teacher making 40K trying to pay back 40K in student loans?? And if he was indeed struggling at 200+K a year, and admits it, why the fuck is he trying to increase burden on ones in the same boat my wanting to raise taxes on that very same group??
More hackery and pandering, if you ask me... and it has no basis in reality
