Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’
view is not on either extreme
Students are
told from an early age that an education is the only way to success, and
yet when they follow the inevitable path, they are lured into a trap -a
debt-trap.

By Gordon Wayne Watts (Editor-in-Chief: The Register --
GordonWatts.com / GordonWayneWatts.com)
(A 377-word Letter on this same
topic [link / cached copy 1 / cached copy 2] published Sunday, Oct. 18, 2009 in
The Tampa Tribune, Views section, p.3.;and, a 295-word
Letter on this same topic [link / cached copy 1 / cached copy 2] published Friday, June 03, 2011 in
The Ledger (of LAKELAND, Fla.), Editorial page, p.A8. --

Published: Monday, 28 September 2009 ; Last Modified: Sunday, 18 December
2011
NOTE: This short,
well-documented research paper (which has been cited[39] in
Wikipedia's articles, as well as The Whitehouse Petitions link here) is only 1,823
words (11,411 characters), according to OpenOffice Word Processor --
Titles, Headers, Updates, Graphs, & citations to Sources (to document
some strong claims herein) drive the word-count up considerably, but
The Register does not stop short to cite our sources.

Position Paper -- A well-documented
study into the U.S. Higher Ed crisis: Causes of skyrocketing tuition and
declining quality of institutions of Higher Education in America --
Proposed solutions

We think of conservatives as right extremes &
liberals as left, polar opposites. However, true conservatives are in the
middle (on this matter anyhow), liberals on the extremes. First, the
history:

In the 1956-57 school year, one source[1] reports a year
of college cost $138, and another source[2] is in close agreement. But
remember we have to adjust for inflation: The $138 figure is about
$1,093.85 in 2008 dollars[7], probably the same for 2009, considering the
year’s inflation[3] was about 0.1%. However, nowadays, the same year of
college costs about $10,066, about a 10X increase. Other sources[4-6]
indicate a cost of $6,142.58 for tuition and $6,920.94 for housing, for a
total of $13,063.52 per year, even higher than the $10,066 fig.

Drug users and the criminally insane can take out a line
of credit, and run up tons of debt and (although it's hard) still declare
bankruptcy.[8-11;36] However, student loans are unique among all loans in
the lack of standard consumer protections (truth in lending; bankruptcy
proceedings; statutes of limits; the right to refinance; adherence to
usury laws; and, Fair Debt & Collection practices, etc.) afforded the
borrower.[12-14] (If institutions of Higher-Ed knew that students could
declare bankruptcy, they would be more apt to charge a fair, free-market
value for their product -instead of monopoly-style collusion to keep both
tuition principle as well as interest rates[36] high -with garnishment and
collection and powers that a mobster would envy.)

The fact that this has driven many students to
suicide[15-18;36] is not without merit: You used to never hear of student
loan suicides -this has only now become a crisis in Higher-Ed recently.
(Their blood should count for something.) OK, that’s the problem:
Skyrocketing Tuition & ‘Tuition Bankruptcies,’ like ‘Medical’ &
’Housing Bankruptcies.’ If Education is the BACKBONE of America, we have a
BROKEN BACK. However, have you considered why this has only now occurred?
Let’s eliminate higher quality as an explanation for the tuition increase.
Mainstream media[19-21] claims education quality has actually decreased;
Sean Hannity & I both agree[22] that quality has plummeted, so higher
tuition isn’t due to better quality.

Any guess why skyrocketing tuition increases have only
NOW become a problem? Yes. Since government keeps bailing out[Figure-3]
Higher-Ed with our tax dollars[Figure-2] for grants & loans to
students and funding of colleges & universities, these institutions
have guaranteed income, thus no incentive to lower prices to Free Market
supply & demand values. Put another way, they could care less if you
go bankrupt & screw-up your life trying to pay off your debt: They’ve
already gotten bailed out[Figure-3] in advance. Picture this: Let’s say
every restaurant & supermarket is subsidized by Big Brother using tax
dollars: Would they be hurt if they charged say $100 for a Big Mac,
eventually bankrupting you? No. This isn’t the first time the concept of
either expensive food[23] or over-taxation[24] has surfaced. Same with
Higher-Ed, the Housing Market, and Social Security. Because of
inefficiency & graft, both Hannity & I also agree[22][Figure-2]
that tax dollars don't need to keep going to Higher-Ed: Let them stand or
fall on their own merit -free market style.

It seems that every time Congress raises the loan limits
for Student Loans, and students can afford more (read: go deeper in debt),
colleges mysteriously find new excuses to raise the tuition. "Things that
make you go 'hmm...'."

Here's where I break ranks with Sean: He feels no matter
what government throws at us, we can somehow pay off bills if we work hard
from 6am-midnight.[22] NOT. Here's where liberal extremes come
in:

* On one extreme: You have people
asking for free handouts. They don’t want to pay for ANY education: Let
the government do it all: That's how Sean classed me in his recent
show.[22]

* On the other extreme: You have
today’s students paying MORE than their fair share, FAR more than peers of
yesteryear, for an education whose quality has actually gone DOWN, not up.
Since most colleges & universities are state-owned & state-funded
and practically ALL institutions of higher ed, even private colleges,
receive funding from tax dollars[Figure-2] through grants & loans (not
to mention being tightly regulated by government as well), they're a de
facto ARM of government. Thus funding influx (e.g., tuition) is
effectively a tax by the very definition. And if you have someone like
Hannity defending extortion of students by a tax[22] which has already
increased 10X, you're effectively supporting tax increase.[24] This extreme is also
"Blue-State"-liberal.

Therefore, having each student owe only the actual value
of his/her education would be the conservative thing to do[Figure-1]
because it falls under moral rights & wrongs as a right thing. Jesus
even asked followers[25] that if someone wanted you to go 1 mile to go 2
(e.g., ‘double’). So there's a good case to be made that paying ‘DOUBLE’
(that is, 200%) is also OK since many fiscal conservatives are also
religious conservatives thus in alignment with Jesus’ creed. Society has
finally gotten rid of the scourge of slavery[26] -or have we[38]? Now
they've found a way to snare a whole new group: "Debt Slaves"[26-27,38] of
all races, creeds, and genders -who they would put in bondage for life
under crushing debt. So, immediate forgiveness of the debt[28] of those
overcharged would be the only way to right the wrongs and then reset the
debt owed to 100%-200% of actual costs. For those who've already somehow
paid back their debt, this is stickier. Either these students would have
to forgive the government or they might get free education for family
members, but to outright refund them cash, even if morally justified,
might have an extreme inflationary effect as the number of dollars in
circulation increases. Besides being the morally "right" thing to do, when
these debt slaves[26-27,38] are freed, they will be able to spend more
money on basic necessities -thus stimulate the economy; the only ones who
would suffer are the banks and lenders -who profit off of others'
financial ruin. Colleges made do in the past & they'd make do now to
learn to live within their means, stop paying exorbitant salaries, funding
stupid building projects, unnecessary clubs & activities.[33] We’ve
done it before -we must do it again: "Red-State"-Conservatives must once again save
the future. (PS: If you’re a liberal reading
this, you should realize that this affects you too and that we must put
aside pride and work together, lest 'divided we fall' -under the weight of
crushing and enslaving debt.)

Furthermore, in the absence of fundamental consumer
protections (truth in lending; bankruptcy proceedings; statutes of limits;
the right to refinance; adherence to usury laws; and, Fair Debt &
Collection practices, etc.), the government and lenders (banks) make more
money in interest and particularly, in fees, if the student defaults on
the loan, so there is a greater financial incentive/motive for the
government & banks to NOT help the student avoid default.

Therefore, seeing the crisis as outlined in this research
paper, I would call upon Federal Lawmakers to pass legislation
to:
**-A-** Prevent any more tax dollars[Figure-2] from
going to Higher-Ed (be they grants(*) or loans –State or
Federal tax dollars)
(*) NOTE: Gordon Wayne
Watts, the author of this Position Paper, has reconsidered his view of
elimination of grant monies, funded by taxpayer dollars, and now would
support *limited* grant monies to offset the very large loss if Federal
Law prohibited the government from making or guaranteeing loans. Liberals
are partly right on this point: The money to run institutions of Higher
Education must come from somewhere. However, the use of *any* grant monies
must be conditioned upon the frugal use of said tax dollars, which, in
plain English, to conservatives like Mr. Watts, means that these
institutions can not use monopoly-style collusion and, in the case of
State Colleges, can not impose an excessive tax (tuition is a form of tax,
as it flows to an arm of the government, State Colleges), *and* must
exercise personal responsibility and must neither spend lavishly, nor
succumb to the pressures to distort the market, by charging an
artificially inflated high tuition, should grant and/or loan monies become
available. Only then, if responsible spending practices were adhered to
would Mr. Watts be OK with use of taxpayer-funded grants to replace or
offset losses if and when loans are discontinued or sharply
curtailed.
-- As in housing, this influx has distorted the
market, resulting in higher tuition. Taxpayers get raped twice by
bailing-out[Figure-3] Higher-Ed:
*-1-* Once
because it inflates tuition by enabling colleges’ 'addiction' to
tax-dollars.
*-2-* Secondly, this 'addiction'
is enabled by your tax dollars[Figure-2] -it costs you.
**-B-** Grant
immediate forgiveness[14,28,36] to all unpaid student loans -and reset the
debt to require students to owe only the free-market value of their
education[Figure-1] (or, up to perhaps twice the Free Market value –but no
more), not the exorbitant prices[36] they were price-gouged through the
monopoly-style collusion of the institutions of Higher-Ed &
lenders/banks with the Federal Government.
**-C-** [{(SAVING THE BEST
FOR LAST)}] However, since most Lawmakers are cowards, and don't have the
'guts' to do A or B, here's an alternative: Return that standard consumer
protections to Student Loans (truth in lending; bankruptcy proceedings;
statutes of limits; the right to refinance; adherence to usury laws; and,
Fair Debt & Collection practices, etc.) -that were recently
removed.[12-14] WHY? Because, if Colleges/Universities knew that students
could declare bankruptcy, they'd be more apt to charge a fair, free-market
value for their product -instead of continued indentured servitude slavery
debt[26-27,38] for life -and, of course, this would afford life-saving
relief to ALL students, past, present, and future –and set free a whole
new generation of slaves: Debt Slaves.[26-27,38]

If these three requirements were made Federal Law[34],
then institutions of Higher-Ed, like Wal-Marts, MacDonald's, and K-Marts,
could experience the free market pressures to offer a higher quality -not
a propped up house of cards -which has been the source of the problems
thus far. (And, yes: Just like the 'Housing' bubble burst, the
'Education' and 'Healthcare' bubbles will burst too if major changes are
not made -and the economy *will* crash.) These universities &
banks know students must go to college to even have a 'chance' at a job in
this economy, so big banks & liberal colleges have a 'captive
audience': Their targeting of students is like 'shooting fish in a
barrel': These students don't stand a chance when tuition rates are
obscenely exorbitant. Students are told from their youth[35] that
they need an education to compete in today's world; let’s not punish them
for doing what is right.

However, any Congressman/Congresswoman or Senator
unwilling to pass these basic consumer protections for Student Loans is
suspect for influence from huge campaign contributions by banks and
bankers, unwilling to give up the 'mobster-like' protection from a
student's ability to declare bankruptcy. Just remember one thing: "Follow
the money."

Gordon Wayne Watts received a Bachelor’s degree from
The Florida State University with a double major in Biological and
Chemical Sciences with honors and was the valedictorian from United
Electronics Institute. Watts, a non-lawyer, is best known for his lawsuit
on behalf of Terri Schiavo[29], which lost 4-3 in the Florida Supreme
Court, arguably doing better than even then Governor Jeb Bush’s similar
suit[30] (lost: 7-0) or Terri Schiavo’s own family’s federal case[31]
(lost: 2-1). Mr. Watts, who ran unsuccessfully for Dist. 64 Fla. House of
Representatives[32], is a part-time political activist while he searches
for a full-time job in his field.

(Tuesday, 28 June 2011) UPDATE:

Since publication of this research paper, I have spoken
with my congressman, U.S. Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.-12), and the outcome
has been nothing less than incredible. First, I sent him an email[37], to
which he responded. I tried to email him through AOL, but he deleted my
email [link: copy a or copy b] probably because it had an email attachment
--and he was being careful to avoid a computer virus. However, notice that
link: When I resent my email, this time without any attachment [link:
copy a or copy b], he still deleted it too. Huh? So, when I
found out new information on the legislation, I emailed him through
Facebook again[37]. If you will notice, in his reply, Rep. Ross claimed
that: "Allowing discharge in bankruptcy for student loans would cause a
sharp decline in availability of loans," however this is patently false:
As this expert has said ((cache: link 'a') or (cache: link 'b')), "This report demonstrates only
a slight increase in the availability of private student loans to
borrowers with low credit scores after BAPCPA made such loans
non-dischargeable [in bankruptcy proceedings]," so, if consumer
protections (like truth in lending; bankruptcy proceedings; statutes of
limits; the right to refinance; adherence to usury laws; and, Fair Debt
& Collection practices, etc.) were restored to Student Loans, then
there would probably only be a slight *decrease* in the availability of
private student loans --those not made or guaranteed by the Federal
Government (since banks would be unwilling to lend to a small number of
people who could not afford to pay back --but that would be a good thing:
They don't need to be borrowing anyhow). --Source: Student Aid Policy
Analysis: Impact of the Bankruptcy Exception for Private
Student Loans on Private Student Loan Availability, by: Mark
Kantrowitz, Publisher, FinAid.org, August 14, 2007 -- Furthermore, as I
had pointed out in my last reply to Congressman Dennis Ross, credit card
loans are typically on the same terms (interest, payment options, fees,
etc.) as these private loans, and yet credit card loans have continued
unabated -and that even someone with bad credit can find a lender. Besides
'private' loans, due to the recent changes in law, the Federal Government
also now lends directly to students for Student Loans, so no 'sharp
decline' in loans would result; furthermore, the Congressman was wrong to
oppose H.R. 5043 on these grounds, as it only returned standard consumer
protections to private, not federal, loans. Lastly, as I pointed out (and
the Congressman has NOT rebutted or answered me on this point), it would
probably be a *good* thing for there to be a "sharp decline" in Student
Loans: This is the way it was in the 1950's, where there was little or
no loans, grants, or other 'student aid' for college education:
Colleges knew they could not over-charge students, and college
administrators learned to live within their means --and, guess what:
American colleges were the best in the world, so they did not need to
overcharge students like they are doing today.

Besides being factually wrong on a number of points, the
Congressman engaged in a bit of bizarre behaviour: Besides deleting my
email without reading it --twice [link: copy a or copy b], and blocking me from his Facebook for no
apparent reason [link: copy a or copy b], he was rather rude and repeatedly evaded
answering a question that two (2) of his constituents posed to him:
[link: copy a or copy b] on his 'Politician' page.

In all fairness to the Congressman, he only blocked me
from his personal Facebook page, not his 'Politician' one; nonetheless, he
seems to discuss politics with his constituents much less on his
politician page, and as I've done nothing to provoke or insult him (other
than express my views, and politely ask for representation), his reactions
and odd behaviour are unwarranted --and actually a bit bizarre. -- It
makes me think that he is being paid off by big banks who want protection
from the Free Market pressures of failure (aka a 'bailout' from having
borrowers be able to file bankruptcy) that would result if the standard
consumer protections for Student Loans (truth in lending; bankruptcy
proceedings; statutes of limits; the right to refinance; adherence to
usury laws; and, Fair Debt & Collection practices, etc.) were returned
to Student Loans --as the law was in the past. -- Since all other loans
have standard consumer protections, young, vulnerable college students
should not be deprived either. This is doubly true now that college
tuition is skyrocketing to obscenely high levels --even as a quality of
education continues to plummet -and other nations continue to outperform
us in math and the sciences. So, we see that this influx of Federal
'student aid' has actually made things worse. Why then do supposedly
'conservative' Congressman like Rep. Ross, continue to interject Big
Government into Higher Education when: (-a-) it goes against their
'Smaller Government' mantra; and, (-b-) It has been proven to NOT
work?

(Friday, 01 July 2011) UPDATE:

To his credit, Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.12), has
addressed a few of the complaints of banning people from his 'Politician'
page [link: copy a or copy b], but, as yet, has refused to address MANY
other concerns, and one reply that he eventually made was just a little
bit weird: [link: copy a or copy b] --still, a bit bizarre, if you ask me: He
is our elected representative. Lastly, since he's not only removed me from
his regular Facebook (http://Facebook.com/RepDennisRoss), but also
BLOCKED me from even seeing his Facebook Wall: [link: copy a or copy b] --and were it not for a good friend letting
me look at his Facebook [link: copy a or copy b], I would not even have seen the Public
Education post. I bet Rep. Ross was not expecting this, but I 're-posted'
his link from his personal Facebook to his 'Politician' Facebook fan
page.

If college student suicides due to Student Loan defaults
has seen a dramatic rise[15-18;36], as I've previously documented, then
this problem is real, not just a financial problem 'on paper': I hope my
Congressman starts caring about his constituents & voters and
responding by both replying AND introducing bills that will solve these
problems, but as yet, his behaviour is a bit unresponsive and on occasion
a bit bizarre.

"Insanity" is doing the same
thing (socialist government involvement into higher-ed, & removal of
Free-Market checks, like standard consumer protections on Student Loans),
and expecting a different result. Either our Representatives &
Senators are 'insane' --or being bought off by
Big Banks --or both?

Figures 1-3:

Sources:
[1] "Massive increases in
higher-ed costs a mystery to be solved," Virgil Swing
(DuluthNewsTribune.com), May 15, 2008,
(http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/search of: "Virgil Swing: Massive
increases in higher-ed costs"), ** http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Budgeteer+News%22+%22Virgil+Swing%22+2008+may+15&start=20&sa=N&filter=0,
** http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu5Vnxr9KXSsBZFJXNyoA?p=%22Budgeteer+News%22+%22Virgil+Swing%22+2008+may+15&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-501&sao=0,
** http://gordonwaynewatts.com/FannyDeregulation/VirgilSwingArticle.JPG,
** http://gordonwatts.com/FannyDeregulation/VirgilSwingArticle.JPG
[2]
"Student Aid and College Tuition: The Upward Spiral," by David W.
Kirkpatrick, Nov 01, 2007 http://www.schoolreport.com/schoolreport/articles/College_Tuition_11_07.htm
states: "In my personal case, while a student at a public college in the
1950s, tuition was $100 per semester. There was no aid but neither was
there any debt at graduation."
[3] "2008 inflation rate at 0.1%,
slowest gain in 54 years for consumer prices" http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation-rates/2008-inflation-rate-at-01-slowest-gain-in-54-years-for-consumer-prices/1000357
[4]
"Average college cost breaks $30,000: Average for 4-year private school
passes key mark; total costs for both public and private schools up well
above inflation," Rob Kelley, Oct 27 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/24/pf/college/college_costs/index.htm
states: "The average tuition at four-year public colleges and universities
is $5,836 for the 2006-07 school year…With room and board, four-year
public colleges average $12,796 for in-state residents." The $5,836 figure
for tuition would be either $6,227.39 or $6,057.77 in 2008, according to
the WestEgg inflation calculator, depending on whether you use 2006 or
2007 as your initial year. The average of those two figures is $6,142.58
for college tuition in 2008
[5] "Preparing to Go to College," p4, http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0131716662.pdf
states: "According to The College Board, the average college housing costs
in the 2004–2005 academic year were about $6,222," which would be either
$7,036.63 or $6,805.25 in 2008, according to the WestEgg inflation
calculator, depending on whether you use 2004 or 2005 as your initial
year. The average of those two figures is $6,920.94 for college housing in
2008
[6] Adding $6,920.94 for housing & $6,142.58 for tuition
yields $13,063.52
[7] http://www.westegg.com/inflation conversion: "What cost
$138 in 1956 would cost $1081.50 in 2008," & "What cost $138 in 1957
would cost $1043.92 in 2008," which is close to $1093.85
[8]
“Criminally insane, but out on the street” (By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS (AP) –
Oct 17, 2009 - SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) -- “Phillip A. Paul in 1987 was
declared criminally insane for killing an elderly woman after voices in
his head told him she was a witch…He obtained several credit cards and
went on shopping sprees that led to a bankruptcy filing.” http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CRIMINALLY_INSANE?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
~ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gH6QbyQfjoqwCFxHJpNb067G_96gD9BD0N5O0
~ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33358068/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
~ http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/1514284.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091017/ap_on_re_us/us_criminally_insane/print
[9]
“25 Rich Athletes Who Went Broke” (BusinessPundit.com, May 18, 2009)
“Scott Harrison…The pride of Scotland had problems with drinking, drugs
and consequently the law. A world champion in 2003, Harrison’s life later
spun out of control. In 2006, he pulled out of a fight to check into
rehab. By July 2007, the ever-classy Harrison declared bankruptcy after
losing his last fight…over unpaid taxes.” http://www.businesspundit.com/25-rich-athletes-who-went-broke
[10]
“STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MULTI HOUSING COUNCIL, et al.,” (BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MARCH 3, 2003) “A resident who was
being evicted for selling drugs on the property declared bankruptcy.” http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=3511
[11]
“Bankrupt: Maxed Out In America” (American RadioWorks, public radio,
Saturday, April 22, 2006) “Over the past decade, 15 million people
declared bankruptcy. That's better than double the figure from the
previous decade.” (No doubt, many criminally insane and/or drug users were
among them, but students, trying to better themselves, are not permitted
to file for bankruptcy when they get overwhelmed by debt, penalties, and
compounding interest. See also, note: "36" below regarding the Bible
standards on interest fees charges for loans.) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/bankruptcy/transcript.html
~ http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-144728950/radio-documentary-focus-bankruptcy.html
[12]
“Student Loans & Bankruptcy” (Student Loan Borrower Assistance
Project, a program of the National Consumer Law Center) “Student loans are
not usually discharged in bankruptcy. It is difficult, but not impossible,
to do so if you can show that payment of the debt “will impose an undue
hardship on you and your dependents.” http://www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/bankruptcy
[13]
“Student Loans In Bankruptcy” (Lawyers.com) “Student loans are not
dischargeable in bankruptcy unless you can show that your loan payment
imposes an "undue hardship" on you, your family, and your dependents.
Non-dischargeable debts are those debts that you cannot totally eliminate
when you file for bankruptcy and will have to be paid by you. It is almost
impossible to show an undue hardship unless you are physically unable to
work and the chances of your obtaining any type of gainful employment in
the future are non-existent.” http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/Student-Loans-In-Bankruptcy.html
[14]
“Student Loan Bankruptcy Options” (MoneyZine.com)
“In the normal course
of bankruptcy, student loans will not be discharged or forgiven. However,
after the proceedings are over, an adversary proceeding can take place in
bankruptcy court to decide if you meet all three of the hardship rules or
tests. In this adversary proceeding, the student loan creditors will be
present to challenge your hardship request. You must be able to satisfy
all three of the following tests in the eyes of the court:
•If you were
forced to repay the student loan, then you will not be able to maintain a
minimal standard of living.
•You are able to present evidence that this
financial hardship will continue for a significant period of time over the
remaining term of the student loan.
•A good faith effort was made to
repay your student loan before you filed for bankruptcy. Effectively this
means you have been faithfully repaying your college loan for a minimum of
five years.
If your loan is discharged, you will not have to repay the
remainder of the money owed these creditors. However, you may have trouble
getting a student loan of any kind in the future.”
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/College-Loan/Student-Loan-Bankruptcy-Options
See also: http://forgivestudentloandebt.com/
[15] “Crushing
debt” (Chicago Sun-Times, BY DAVE NEWBART) September 24, 2007 "Jan Yoder
was preparing for her son's funeral when the phone rang. It was another
student loan collector wanting to know when her son would pay up…It was
those calls and the burden of crushing debt, she says, that led her
depressed son to take the drastic action of killing himself late last
month. ''When it gets to the point where people are fleeing the country,
going off the grid or taking their own lives, you know something has gone
horribly wrong,'' said Alan Collinge, founder of Student Loan Justice,
which is pushing to change student lending laws.” http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/NewsDigest/NewsWeekly/092807.pdf
~ http://nalert.blogspot.com/2007/09/student-loan-debt-drives-man-to-suicide.html
See also: http://studentloanjustice.org/
[16] “I’m Thinking of
Suicide Because of My Student Loans. – John” (GetOutOfDebt.org, undated
news story) “Dear Steve, My student loans are almost $42,000 dollars. I
pay almost $260 dollars per month and all but $12 dollars is interest and
the principal continues to go higher…I frequently think about suicide;
thinking about my son is the only thing that has so far kept me from
committing suicide. John” http://getoutofdebt.org/5493/im-thinking-of-suicide-because-of-my-student-loans-john
See also, note: "36" below regarding the Bible standards on interest fees
charges for loans.
[17] "A Pastor's Student Loan Debt" (NPR, by Libby
Lewis) July 14, 2007 “Dan Lozer's tiny paycheck means he'll be paying off
those loans until 2029...Lozer said there was a time when he thought about
suicide.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11980696
[18]
“Company’s march toward student loan monopoly scary” (The News Tribune, By
ALAN COLLINGE) 06/19/07 “In Boston; a medical student can’t get licensed
because he can’t pay $52,000 on what began as a $3,000 debt. A suicide in
Oregon. A suicide in Maryland. People who have fled the country due to the
explosion of their student loan debt. The list goes on and on.” http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/90638.html
See also: http://studentloanjustice.org/
[19] "U.S. Teens Trail
Peers Around World on Math-Science Test," Maria Glod, Washington Post, Dec
5, 2007; Page A07 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
[20]
"U.S. falls in education rank compared to other countries," Elaine Wu
(U-Wire), 10-04-2005, The Kapi‘o Newspress http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22falls+in+education+rank+compared+to+other+countries%22+%22Elaine+Wu%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
And http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22falls+in+education+rank+compared+to+other+countries%22+%22Elaine+Wu%22&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-832
(Key phrases search: "falls in education rank compared to other countries"
"Elaine Wu")
[21] "U.S. slips lower in coding contest: In what could be
an ominous sign for the U.S. tech industry, American universities slipped
lower in an international programming contest," Ed Frauenheim, News.com,
Posted on ZDNet News: Apr 7, 2005 http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-142206.html
[22]
Sean Hannity, from 7:22-8:22, concurs with this analysis -and with me:
We’ve been "dumbed down" and our public schools are "mediocre at best." At
8:22+, he says "taxpayers ought not foot the bill" for Higher-Ed. From
4:59-5:13, he makes the ‘6am to midnight’ comments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ogGD17pq4&feature=channel_page
** Cached: http://www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/21-22Sept2009-Hannity-Call-In.mp3
and http://www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/21-22Sept2009-Hannity-Call-In.mp3.
Newly
added comment: I
don't mean any offense or disrespect to Sean Hannity, but I must now
update my research paper here to clarify and point out one glaring FACT:
Mr. Sean Hannity is a hypocrite -While he has no problem with student's
tuition (a form of tax: see above) being jacked up almost one-thousand
(1,000%) percent, LOL, nonetheless, I am quite sure that he could cringe
at the discovery that *his* income taxes increased by the same amount. IN
HIS DEFENSE, I realise that he would probably say that this is not an
equal comparison -ah, but is it?? --Well, he has no choice but to get a
job of some sort to make money, and, likewise, the students nowadays, have
no choice but to get an education if we are to compete in the global
market. So, the comparison is indeed equal. I say all this to underscore
the double-standards and hypocrisy the rich have for those
similarly-situated who are poor -even the "conservative" rich, like
Hannity. THAT is the reason our country is falling: Lack of care for our
neighbour. That all needs to change -and it will upon arrival of Jesus. In
time.--END OF COMMENT
[23] As odd as this sounds
-that a meal will be 100 or 200 dollars many religious conservatives do
believe this will happen in the very near future -due to end-times
prophecies such as this one: "And I heard a voice in the midst of the four
beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley
for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine." (Holy Bible, Rev
6:6 KJV) "…[The price: It will be a] quart of wheat [a day’s worth of
human food] for a denarius [a whole day's wages], and three quarts of
barley [daily measure of food used for livestock also sold] for a
denarius…" (Holy Bible, Rev 6:6 AMP) Cf II Kings 6:25, another similar
occasion. (Some comments in bracket not in original but added for
clarity)
[24] In 1st Samuel 22:1-2, people were probably over-taxed and
in debt, and without a doubt this was the case with Solomon’s not-so-wise
son, Rehoboam, as told in 1st Kings 12:1-16 -almost all of his citizens
revolted and kicked him out as king for his stated plans to over-tax his
constituents.
[25] "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go
with him twain." (Holy Bible, Matt 5:41 KJV)
[26] In Dred
Scott, a 7-2 majority of America's highest court, not too long
ago, held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to
slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the
Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford, 15 L.Ed. 691; 19
How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857).
[27] Key Phrase search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22debt+slaves%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1g-m1
and http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22debt+slaves%22&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
[28]
This is not the first time in history blanket forgiveness of debts has
been considered: “1At the end of every seven years you shall grant a
release of debts. 2And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who
has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require
it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD’s
release…9Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The
seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil
against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the
LORD against you, and it become sin among you. 10You shall surely give to
him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because
for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in
all to which you put your hand. 11For the poor will never cease from the
land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to
your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’” (HOLY BIBLE,
Deuteronomy 15:1-11, NKJV) Those 'moral conservatives' who would suggest
this is not fair for those students who have already repaid their debts
should note that in the Deuteronomy passage above, no allowance is made
for special treatment for those debtors who had repaid their debts -they
just had to 'tough it out' and be glad their neighbors' debts were
forgiven. This is the kind of ‘tough love’ that is needed to address the
higher education and bankruptcy crisis hitting our nation, not unlike the
‘hard-line’ advice given in both Old and New Testaments regarding how to
address housing and homeless issues. Isaiah 58:6-7 (Old Testament) demands
that you take in the homeless wandering stranger -and no less than Jesus,
Himself, in the New Testament (Matthew 25:31-46) repeats this same demand
-echoing all sustentative requirements laid down by the prophet Isaiah:
Jesus makes no bones about the consequences for not feeding the hungry,
clothing the naked, or taking in the homeless: With Divine authority
conferred upon Him, Jesus does no less than send the malefactors directly
to Hell. -- Jesus also said: "And whenever you stand
praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him and let it drop
(leave it, let it go), in order that your Father Who is in heaven may also
forgive you your [own] failings and shortcomings and let them
drop." (Mark 11:25, Holy Bible, AMP) -- LASTLY, Jesus also said:
"...forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. (Luke
6:37b, Holy Bible, KJV) - See also: http://forgivestudentloandebt.com/
[29] In Re:
GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE “TERRI”
SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on
rehearing. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf
[30]
In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO,
GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004),
denied 7-0 on rehearing. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf
[31]
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403
F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628.pdf
[32]
Key Phrase search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22florida+house%22+64+%22gordon+wayne+watts%22&cts=1255495265724&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
and http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22florida+house%22+64+%22gordon+wayne+watts%22&fr=yfp-t-155&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
[33]
One example of wasteful spending I could not fit in due to word-length
(this research paper is already exactly 1,575 words in the body only -not
counting the title, references, or footer), was the requirement for
students to purchase the newest edition of textbooks every year. This is
entirely untenable, since many sciences -such as Physics and Math -have
not changed sustentatively in the last century: The Laws of Physics aren’t
just going to change all of a sudden -and the newer developments do not
need new textbooks (such as one friend who reports that he paid $1,500.oo
for *each* of his children for new textbooks). The Higher-Ed textbook
industry is a “Cash Cow,” milking students. One alternative is to have
textbooks online -or -in portable “e-books.” Another is to require only
supplemental materials be purchased -or downloaded. However, no matter how
you slice it, students are getting juked and played like a piano -and
milked like a cow. America’s good name is tarnished when education costs
more -and does less -than other countries. I don’t wish to offend other
countries (they beat us fair and square), but this game must not continue:
Just like in war, everybody loses when it played.
[34] My friend, Eddie
Adams, Jr., who is a genuine conservative (one of many true
conservatives this election cycle) running for U.S.
Congress in a neighboring district, was recently interviewed by me for
my newspaper's coverage (main
link - alt. link) of the Districts 11 and 12 House races.
When I asked him about pouring tax dollars into higher-ed, he responded
predictably and as expected -he opposed such; however, when I asked him
whether he supported standard bankruptcy protections for student loans as
with credit cards users, he said they should pay them back -as he did
(invoking the personal responsibility motif). While I respect his work
ethic and feel he has earned a right to his opinion, I genuinely feel he
was wrong on the merits (because I feel students should only pay back the
value of their education -not the inflated amount they were forced to
accept due to the collusion of the institutions of higher-ed). Since he,
like myself, is a Christian, who adheres to the Bible as infallible
scripture (his grandfather was a Baptist preacher), I was
inspired to review the Lord's standards on this topic, and I credit Eddie
for so inspiring me. It is my belief that all true followers of Christ
will be conformed to the renewing of the scriptures, and so I write this
with the hope that Eddie will slowly, but surely, change his viewpoint
herewith: This section below is directed only at Bible-believing
Christians -and, while trying to "win converts" is good, that is not what
this section is saying:

‘Practical’ considerations: What’s helpful for
*you*
7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” -Galatians 6:7
(KJV)
TRANSLATION: Karma has a biting way about it: What goes around
comes around, so don’t jack the students out of their fair value by
**greatly** overcharging them for their education –simply
because they're a captive audience -and a captive market.

‘Legal’ considerations: What’s helpful according to the
*government*
1 “Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good
works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” -Romans 13:1-3
(KJV)
COMMENTARY: If monopoly or collusion laws were broken –and/or if
excessive fines imposed upon student that are not even legal for credit
card users (the latter implicating Equal Protection), then this would be
illegal –and, besides violating ‘Man’s Law,’ the rich leaders profiting
off of students would also be in violation of this section of God’s
standard.

‘Moral’ considerations: What’s helpful for
*others*
12 “In everything, therefore, treat people
the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the
Prophets.” -Matthew 7:12 (NASB)

16b-17a “…Judge fairly between each person and his fellow or
foreigner. Don't play favorites; treat the little and the big alike;
listen carefully to each. Don't be impressed by big names. This is God's
judgment you're dealing with...” -Deuteronomy 1:16b-17a (The Message)

3 “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the
afflicted and needy.” -Psalm 82:3 (KJV)

21 “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be
unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.” -Proverbs
11:21 (KJV)

22 “Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not
crush the needy in court,
23 for the LORD will take up their
case and will plunder those who plunder them.” -Proverbs 22:22-23 (NIV)

8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for
the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge
fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” -Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)

11 “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried
out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.”
-Ecclesiastes 8:11 (NIV)

20 “Humility is an abomination to the proud; likewise the
poor are an abomination to the rich. 21 When the rich person
totters, he is supported by friends, but when the humble falls, he is
pushed away even by friends. 22 If the rich person slips, many
come to the rescue; he speaks unseemly words, but they justify him. If the
humble person slips, they even criticize him; he talks sense, but is not
given a hearing. 23 The rich person speaks and all are silent;
they extol to the clouds what he says. The poor person speaks and they
say, "Who is this fellow?" And should he stumble, they even push him
down.” -Sirach 13:20-23 (NRSV) Deuterocanonical Apocrypha

10 “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is
small.” -Proverbs 24:10 (KJV)

28 “Strive for the truth unto death, and the Lord shall
fight for thee.” -Sirach 4:28 (KJV)

28 “Fight to the death for truth, and the Lord God will
fight for you.” -Sirach 4:28 (NRSV)

[35] In my Official Campaign pages (http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Campaign.html and http://GordonWatts.com/Campaign.html), like most
'conservatives,' I had supported VOUCHERS for high schools and other
public schools, at least for 'equal treatment' of vouchers as with Pell
Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans, but I was dead-wrong here: Although I
was right to support 'equal treatment' between vouchers (pre-K through
high school) and Pell Grants & Guaranteed student loans (Higher
Education, Universities, college), I WAS WRONG to support vouchers AT ALL
-for the same reason I was wrong to support and public funding of
higher-ed: It distorts the market, feeding an addiction which results in
higher tuition and costs -all the while using tax dollars to feed this
addiction. Thus, if I make a compelling case against liberals using tax
dollars for higher ed (grants, loans), then the same problems must
*logically* exist with vouchers: Even though students and parents can make
some choice in which high school to attend (some free market 'competition'
forces are at work), the influx of tax dollars still distorts the market
(overall, that is), and the high schools realise they can raise tuition,
since students can afford more. Thus, while intuitively against what we
may feel, we must be consistent with our logic and rationally conclude
that the government should get OUT of education altogether: Both Higher Ed
(colleges and Universities) as well as 'lower' ed: Pre-K through high
school.

[36] Gordon's
Story:
Long-story-short: My student loan is unfair
"usury / interest" -prohibited by many Biblical scriptures enumerated
below, and I am drowning in debt... (from the Amplified Bible)

--
This is the end of the "short" version. Below, this email is long, I warn
the reader in all fairness. --

Matthew 25:27
Then you should have invested my money with the
bankers, and at my coming I would have received what was my own with
interest.

Luke 19:23
Then why did you not put my money in a
bank, so that on my return, I might have collected it with interest?

Comment: Jesus does not say He
agrees with interest being charged --He only acknowledges its existence;
but, even assuming Jesus now approves of interest charged on loans, a
change from Old Testament times, nonetheless, He does *not* approve of
over-bearing or oppressively crushing interest and charges, as described
below -- You use Scripture to interpret Scripture:

Exodus 22:25
If you lend money to any of My people with you who is
poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, neither shall you require
interest from him.

Leviticus 25:36
Charge him no interest or
[portion of] increase, but fear your God, so your brother may [continue
to] live along with you.

Leviticus 25:37
You shall not give him
your money at interest nor lend him food at a profit.

Deuteronomy
23:19
You shall not lend on interest to your brother--interest on
money, on victuals, on anything that is lent for
interest.

Deuteronomy 23:20
You may lend on interest to a
foreigner, but to your brother you shall not lend on interest, that the
Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land to which
you go to possess it.

Nehemiah 5:7
I thought it over and then
rebuked the nobles and officials. I told them, You are exacting interest
from your own kinsmen. And I held a great assembly against
them.

Nehemiah 5:10
I, my brethren, and my servants are lending
them money and grain. Let us stop this forbidden interest!

Psalm
15:5
[He who] does not put out his money for interest [to one of his
own people] and who will not take a bribe against the innocent. He who
does these things shall never be moved.

Proverbs 28:8
He who by
charging excessive interest and who by unjust efforts to get gain
increases his material possession gathers it for him [to spend] who is
kind and generous to the poor.

Ezekiel 18:8
Who does not charge
interest or percentage of increase on what he lends [in compassion], who
withholds his hand from iniquity, who executes true justice between man
and man,

Ezekiel 18:13
And has charged interest or percentage of
increase on what he has loaned [in supposed compassion]; shall he then
live? He shall not live! He has done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18:17
Who has
withdrawn his hand from [oppressing] the poor, who has not received
interest or increase [from the needy] but has executed My ordinances and
has walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his
father; he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 22:12
In you they have
accepted bribes to shed blood; you have taken [forbidden] interest and
[percentage of] increase, and you have greedily gained from your neighbors
by oppression and extortion and have forgotten Me, says the Lord
God.

The Details:

Right out of high school,
I went to the local community college in my area under a “merit
scholarship,” because of my grades (top 10% in high school), but, since I
was a kid, I lost the scholarship after 3 semesters due to low grades. I
was too young to know what I wanted. Then, I went to electronic college
here in the Tampa Bay (Florida) area, to study a hobby I enjoyed, and the
college indicated it might help me get a good job, but no job was
forthcoming, even though I was one of three students who tied for my class
valedictorian, that is, the number one spot. Even though I was unable to
get a good job, I made regular payments on my loan.

However, a few
years later, figuring my 2-year vocational degree was not enough, I went
back to college, and I graduated with honors and a double major from The
Florida State University, hoping to pursue genetics -another subject of
which I am fond.

I achieved higher grades at Florida State than I
had even during the 2 semesters I retained my “Merit Scholarship” at
Hillsborough Community College, but the State of Florida did not give me
back my academic scholarship.

In plain English, what I am trying to
say here is that even when I got my grades HIGHER than those who had
academic scholarships, I was not given my scholarship back -the money went
to students, many of whom had LOWER grades than me, which I think was
unfair, and, from a “constitutional” standpoint, a Federal Violation of
Equal Protection (I was not “Equally” protected here, since those with
lower grades continued to receive academic grants.)

My total debt
grew to 46 Thousand dollars, 23 Thousand of subsidized loans and 23
Thousand of unsubsidized loans. (That is, the government pays the interest
on subsidized loans under some circumstances.) I tried getting a good job
in my field, but since few companies in Florida deal in genetics, any
serious move I have attempted to make to obtain a job in my field would
take major money for rent (I live with my father currently), and I can
afford either rent OR paying back my college loan, BUT not both -unless I
want to pay only on the interest and pay on it
forever!

Help!

I did not go to college to be a burger
flipper, hello. I call upon My God to help me -I believe in Heaven and
all, but I don’t want to be a martyr simply because greedy persons in
authority charge me interest.

In all fairness to Sallie Mae, they
let me consolidate my loan and have -up to this point -continued to grant
me forbearances and unemployment deferments, but the interest continues to
grow, and I don’t know, from a mathematical standpoint, how I will ever be
able to pay back my loan.

When a student jumps through all the
“right” hoops and yet something like this happens (and my case is not even
a “horror story” -many are apparently much worse, reading these other
letters) …uh…oh! Yes, as I was saying: When a student jumps through all
the “right” hoops and yet something like this happens, something is just
not right, folks.

If the “Interest” charged on my loans were no
more than the rate of inflation, I could pay on the loan until it is paid
off, as my pay-raises would increase in strength at the same pace as the
interest, but we know that this is not true. For this reason, it doth
appear to me that “The System Is Broke.” Help…

Sincerely, and I
sign with my real name to show that I am not making up this
story:

Mr. Gordon Wayne Watts of Lakeland, Florida, USA, Earth.

[37] -- Copy of: Facebook.com
e-mail correspondence --
Cached copy of screen shot to
prove Ross really said this: mirror 1 -- mirror 2

Between Dennis Ross
and You

Gordon Wayne
Watts June 2 at 10:16am

I posted a question about
H.R. 5043 just now, and it's deleted - I guess you deleted it. Was my post
offensive in some way? The issues surrounding that are explained on http://GordonWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html or
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html
-- briefly, students used to have bankruptcy protections, and if these
standard loan protections are returned, the Federal Government will be
less likely to guarantee student loans, less loans will originate, --and
at a cost lower than before (Lower Tuition: since colleges will know they
can't price-gouge students without rick of bankruptcy), and this will have
a "side effect" of getting Government OUT of Higher-Education.
(Translation: GOOD, since conservatives *want* the Govt out of Higher
Education.)

For some reason, liberals support this too -and I suspect they view it
as a free handout.

I don't want a free handout - I don't mind paying what I owe, but I
don't want to be over-taxed to death, and tuition is technically a tax,
since it is funding to a state-owned college in most cases -and a college
regulated by State & Federal govt is all cases.

This is a rare issue where liberals & conservatives can see
eye-to-eye and agree -instead of the usual Washington 'gridlock.'

What is your take on this issue? -- And, what about my post was
offensive to motivate you to delete it?

Dennis Ross
June 2 at 10:55am Report
I toko it down because I wanted my
constituents to see the post about the balanced budget hearing going on
right now. Nothing offenseive, just didn't want that post mvoed down the
page so far.

As for HR 5043, I do not support it. Allowing discharge in bankruptcy
for student loans would cause a sharp decline in availability of loans. I
also do not supoprt the federal government being the only student loan
lender, as it is now after last year.

Gordon Wayne
Watts June 2 at 11:26am

I *want* a sharp decline
in the availability of student loans (ideally, I would eliminate ALL of
the government's interference in the Free Market -and get the Federal
Government *out* of Higher Education altogether!)

You see, Dennis, every time Congress raises the loan limits (thus
enabling students to be saddled with more debt), dishonest liberal
colleges find new excuses to raise tuition (even though they're not
justified, since quality of education has actually gone down).

In the 50's US colleges were tops in the world, in tuition could be
paid for by a part time job in the cafeteria over the summer.

Now-days, tuition is unbearably heavy -with some students even
committing suicide -- have you ever wondered why tuition is skyrocketing
much faster than inflation's rate?

Liberals who support gov't interference in the free market make
unrealistically large loans available, and colleges simply charge more
because they can.

But I don't see how a conservative such as you or I could support this
interference in the Free Market by the Government.

If the gov't got out of guaranteeing loans (which would occur to some
small degree if HR5043 passed -since bankruptcy would partly cancel out
past loans -and discourage future ones from being unrealistically large),
then tuition would drop -since colleges would know they could no longer
price-gouge students without repercussions.

If drug users & criminals with credit cards can get bankruptcy, why
not students?

Also, when bankruptcy protections were in place for student loans just
a few years ago, lender were not so irresponsible, and the default rate
was not high -but when bankruptcy protections were removed, the default
rate skyrocket.

Lastly, the conservative Tampa Tribune 'got it': (Beware the debt trap,
Tampa Tribune, Oct 18, 2009)
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/oct/18/co-beware-the-debt-trap/news-opinion-letterday

or: http://GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/TampaTrib10-18-2009.jpg
or:
http://GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/TampaTrib10-18-2009.jpg

You're just as conservative as the Tribune, I trust – here is
documentation and clarification of my claims about HR5043:
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html
or:
http://GordonWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html

You know I'm a conservative, and I don't want to 'get out' of paying
for my college education (eg getting a 'Free Handout'), but tuition is,
technically, a tax, since it goes to state-owned universities in most
cases --and Federal/State regulated colleges in all cases, and students
have been over taxed now for some time. You don't support this over-tax
which resulted from liberals' intefering with the free market, do you?
(Hint: Colleges of the 50's were low because the gov't didn't intefere in
the Free Market.)

Gordon Wayne
Watts June 2 at 2:03pm

I was a little emotional
earlier --rest assured I am not mad or offended at your deleting my post.
(But since I see you did delete my 'regular' email -probably afraid the
attachment might infect your computer, I will hope to gain your ear just a
little longer.)

Anyhow, we've tried it the liberals' way --and all those 'Student
Loans' did nothing but enable a skyrocketing tuition.

So, that's why I want to go back to the way it was: Either no loans at
all -or, if there are loans, standard consumer protections (eg bankruptcy)
--like it was back in the 50's --when quality of education was high, and
tuition was low.

What has, at root, caused this lending system to grow in to the
predatory beast it has become, caused the schools to loose their honor in
favor of greed, hurt the students, etc. is #1: the removal of standard
consumer protections from student loans & also #2: the creation of
draconian collection powers. Combined, these two actions made defaults the
preferable outcome for the entire lending system, and took away the
motivation to help the students from the people running the system (most
importantly the people at the Department of Education).

When the people making the loans (the guarantors for the loans &
even the Department of Education) lost the financial interest to help the
students, but instead were given a financial incentive to want students to
default & fail, the entire system became predatory, corrupted,
inflationary, etc. This is the most fundamental cause that explains the
unchecked greed that came to dominate the colleges/universities. Simply
returning the standard consumer protections that were taken away (e.g.,
those HR 5043 reactivated) will fix this defect, and, over time, the
various horrible things that were created will go away, and this includes
the raping of the students by the schools.

Government interference in the Free Market has not worked, as we see
--I want the Federal Government out of Higher Ed altogether, and students
who were over-taxed to be reimbursed.

Gordon Wayne
Watts June 2 at 6:16pm

I was wrong on some of
what I said regarding HR 5043... and I wanted to apologise:

As I was heading out the door for lunch earlier today, Jacob Walsh, a
friend I haven't heard from in years call me up because he wanted my help
in helping him apologise to Alan Collinge the head of Student Loan Justice
-and it was because he changed his views on student loan bankruptcy.

I was freaked out because of the timing of this -- since I had planned,
while I was at lunch, to drop off a copy of my letter to the editor that
you deleted in your AOL email (you prob. deleted it because it had an
attachment --and I don't totally blame you).

Jacob has been a student loan officer for many years now, and so I took
the chance to ask his opinion of the issue, so that if you and I discussed
it further, I would know if I had taken a "common sense" approach.

Jacob looked up H.R. 5043 on the computer while we talked, and he
brought to my attention that this affects only private student loans -not
subsidised ones, such as Stafford.

I relayed to him your concern that bankruptcy protections would chill
the market, and, as you say, cause a sharp decline in availability of
loans; Jacob pointed out that credit card loans are typically on the same
terms (interest, payment options, fees, etc.) as these private loans, and
yet credit card loans have continued unabated -and that even someone with
bad credit can find a lender.

He also pointed out that there would still be Stafford and other
Federally-guaranteed loans available to student -and that they would not
have any bankruptcy protections.

So, he concluded that your fears of a sharp decline in availability of
loans were unfounded.

He also took a swipe at your stance on the issue, saying that you were
not a 'true' republican, since he believes you are bought out by the big
lenders to allow these loans to students, but I tried to defend you on
this point, saying I believed you were truly conservative. Jacob lives in
Indiana, and thus not a constituent in your district, but I fear other
constituents might sympathise with the views he espoused.

Anyhow, now that I've clarified that HR 5043 doesn't touch public or
backed loans, as they call them, and that even the private loans would be
affected no differently than credit card loans (which are done all the
time -with no difficulty), are your fears allied?

Lastly, if what you're saying is true about bankruptcy protections
causing a sharp decline in student loans, then how did colleges get by in
the 50's without soaking student -and ruining their creidt with super high
loans that could not be discharged short of a full disability or the like?
(My guess is the colleges learned to live within their means -and obeyed
free market pressures.)

You'll enjoy my letter to the Tampa Tribune --it is quite short and to
the point.

[38] Research paper
-- Comparison of Student Loan Debt Slavery to
Civil War Slavery: Percentages of enslaved citizens, types of
slavery and oppressions, and expected results

Comparison of Student Loan Debt Slavery to Civil War
Slavery:

Percentages of enslaved citizens, types
of slavery and oppressions, and expected results

Author: Gordon
Wayne Watts (
www.GordonWatts.com / www.GordonWayneWatts.com ) – Friday, 01 July
2011

This analysis of the
relevant data asks this question:

“Which form of slavery is more prevalent in the
population, and what end result can be reasonably expected based on the
data?” Comments of analysis (set off by: “Gordon's
Comments:”) appear below each data entry to show
relevance to the question under review.

SUMMARY: Normally, such a comparison would be insulting to U.S.
African-American citizens, but in light of new figures of a dramatic rise in suicides (of students of all colours,
ages, & genders) by stress resultant
from Student Loan Defaults, this comparison is valid: Their blood is worth
something.

[*] “Crushing
debt” (Chicago Sun-Times, BY DAVE NEWBART) September 24, 2007 "Jan Yoder
was preparing for her son's funeral when the phone rang. It was another
student loan collector wanting to know when her son would pay up…It was
those calls and the burden of crushing debt, she says, that led her
depressed son to take the drastic action of killing himself late last
month. ''When it gets to the point where people are fleeing the country,
going off the grid or taking their own lives, you know something has gone
horribly wrong,'' said Alan Collinge, founder of Student Loan Justice,
which is pushing to change student lending laws.” http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/NewsDigest/NewsWeekly/092807.pdf (Higher Ed NewsWeekly: from the Illinois Board of Higher
Education, page 57) ~ http://nalert.blogspot.com/2007/09/student-loan-debt-drives-man-to-suicide.html (Newsalert) See also: http://StudentLoanJustice.org

[*] “I’m Thinking
of Suicide Because of My Student Loans. – John” (GetOutOfDebt.org, undated
news story) “Dear Steve, My student loans are almost $42,000 dollars. I
pay almost $260 dollars per month and all but $12 dollars is interest and
the principal continues to go higher…I frequently think about suicide;
thinking about my son is the only thing that has so far kept me from
committing suicide. John” http://getoutofdebt.org/5493/im-thinking-of-suicide-because-of-my-student-loans-john See also, note: "36" below regarding the Bible standards on
interest fees charges for loans.

[*] "A Pastor's
Student Loan Debt" (NPR, by Libby Lewis) July 14, 2007 “Dan Lozer's tiny
paycheck means he'll be paying off those loans until 2029...Lozer said
there was a time when he thought about suicide.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11980696

[*] “Company’s
march toward student loan monopoly scary” (The News Tribune, By ALAN
COLLINGE) 06/19/07 “In Boston; a medical student can’t get licensed
because he can’t pay $52,000 on what began as a $3,000 debt. A suicide in
Oregon. A suicide in Maryland. People who have fled the country due to the
explosion of their student loan debt. The list goes on and on.”
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/90638.html See also: http://StudentLoanJustice.org

See:
http://GordonWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html or:

http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html or even:

http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html

for more
details.

DATA:

After the American Revolution,
the Southern slave population exploded, reaching about 1.1 million in 1810
and over 3.9 million in 1860. Source: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

Total 1860
Population

Total
Free Population

27,489,561

Total
Slave Population

3,953,760

Grand
Total

31,443,321

http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

1860

31,443,000

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-population-of-the-us-throughout-its-history.htm

Gordon's Comments: Civil War Home's figures
seem most accurate and are verified by EH.net and
WiseGeek.com

The figures show that African American slaves
constituted 12.57% of the total population immediately before the Civil
War –in other words, when 12.5% of the population was oppressed with
slavery, this was the 'tipping point' of the crisis. If and when a similar
percentage of oppressed American citizens (of any demography) is
oppressed, we might expect a similar end result as was seen in the Civil
War; economic oppression has been shown to have very strong negative
results, no matte the context or demography under
oppression.

U.S. & World
Population Clocks

U.S. 311,666,453

World 6,946,113,685

07:55 UTC (EST+5) Jul 01, 2011
Source: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

U.S. Population, 2011:
310 Million and Growing

By Robert Schlesinger

Posted: December 30, 2010

Source:http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/12/30/us-population-2011-310-million-and-growing

Gordon's Comments: The official U.S. Census
website seems not only the most accurate (as verified by similar figures
from USNews.com), but also (and as more importantly) an official source.
We then take [accept] the U.S. Population to be 311,666,453, as
stated.

Nearly 12 percent of borrowers
who began repayment in fiscal 2007 defaulted within three years – up from
9.2 percent for 2006. But at for-profit colleges, the rate was 21.2
percent within three years, The Associated Press calculated from the
government's data. That was up from 18.8 percent for fiscal
2006...However, the new data show more than 300 colleges – more than 85
percent of them for-profit schools – had three-year default rates higher
than 30 percent. Those schools will have to improve when the rules kick in
or risk losing federal aid...The figures do not include private student
loans, just those from the government.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/student-loan-defaults-1-i_n_390821.html

Gordon's
Comments: I'm just
looking for total numbers of loans (or total numbers of students) and then
the total number of defaulted (and also distressed) loans –in order to get
a simple percentage. The Huffington Post's figures are hard to pin down to
a specific total, but they may possibly be useful in gauging other figures
–to make sure that any other sources are at least "in the ballpark" and
close enough to be accepted as accurate. Since the Huffington Post's
figures don't include private loans, then the genuine numbers are going to
be higher.

Borrowers in the 2005 cohort
faced a range of circumstances and options as they started repaying their
loans, and continued to do so as they moved along the path of trying to
meet their repayment obligations. The study looks at whether these
borrowers became delinquent at some point during that period or availed
themselves of various options to postpone or delay repayment during their
first five years in repayment...The defaulters. About 15 percent of
borrowers not only became delinquent, but also had defaulted on their
loan(s) at some point during the first five years of their repayment term.
In total, 41 percent of the borrowers faced the negative consequences of
delinquency or default. It is important to recognize that for every
borrower who defaults there are at least two others who were also
delinquent on their student loans, but successfully avoided default. These
data illustrate that many more borrowers are having difficulty repaying
their loans in a timely manner than is generally recognized when the focus
is on default rates alone. These patterns are both a cause for concern and
an opportunity for improvement.

Source: http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/a-f/Delinquency-The_Untold_Story_FINAL_March_2011.pdf

Gordon's
Comments: Here, the
IHEP.org (Institute for Higher Education Policy) website makes more
specific claims.

First, let's look at the Huffington Post's
stat: "Nearly 12 percent of borrowers who began
repayment in fiscal 2007 defaulted within three
years," and now let's look a comparable IHEP stat:
"About 15 percent of borrowers
[in the 2005 'cohort' -a group with similar
demographics under study] not only
became delinquent, but also had defaulted on their loan(s) at some point
during the first five years of their repayment
term." Since the IHEP studied students for 5
years, not 3 –and also included delinquency, it is not surprising that
their 15% figure is larger than the Huffington Post's 12% figure, and also
(most significantly), the two figures are similar enough to verify one
another. Therefore, when IHEP states that the total percentage of
borrowers facing "delinquency
or default" was 41%, we have a source that we can
trust –and, relevant to our question, we have an 'overall' figure we can
trust for future analysis and
calculations.

A whopping 46.3 percent of
federal loans distributed to students at for-profit colleges in 2008 would
go into default, according to new Education Department data...This figure
is significantly larger than the rate of default on student loans overall,
which in 2008 amounted to 15.8 percent.

Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/46-percent-default-rate-o_n_800283.html

citing: http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/122010CDRlifetimerate2010.html

and: http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/attachments/122010CDRlifetimerateexplanationattachmentone2010.pdf

and: http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/attachments/122010CDRlifetimerateattachment2ratechart2010.pdf

Gordon's
Comments: The Huffington Post's 15.8% figure for
'overall' 2008 defaults is similar to the previous two 'default' figures,
and their projection of 46.3% is also similar to the 41% figure from IHEP
for "delinquency or default" loans –and this seems reasonable, since many
of the 'delinquency' loans in the IHEP figure might reasonably be expected
to eventually default, thus pushing the figure up. -- Thus, let's take
46.3% to be the figure of total Student Loans we expect to eventually
default.

Student Loans are the
New Indentured Servitude

By Mike Konczal

Oct 12 2009, 12:35 PM ET

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/10/student-loans-are-the-new-indentured-servitude/28235/

Gordon's
Comments: This is vague and offers no solid data, but
this widely-accepted 'new reality'
("Student
Loans are the New Indentured
Servitude") does seem to verify specific data from other
sources.

More Than 1 in 3 Federal
Student Loan Borrowers Struggling to Make Payments

Source:
http://studentlendinganalytics.typepad.com/student_lending_analytics/2009/10/more-than-1-in-3-federal-student-loan-borrowers-struggling-to-make-payments.html

Gordon's
Comments: This 33.3% figure seems to support figures
cited above.

Student Loan Debt
Surpasses Credit Card Debt-What to Do?

When the numbers shake out,
that’s nearly $830 billion of student loan debt compared to the more than
$825 billion of credit card debt. Unlike credit card debt, people cannot
have federally-guaranteed student loans erased by declaring bankruptcy.
And the government can garnish Social Security payments and tax refunds if
a person defaults on student loan payments...Students take out loans to
better themselves, to create a future in an industry or business sector
and to earn a living so that they can raise a family and become a
productive part of society. And as tuition rates rise, more students and
families are borrowing to the point of no return...Higher education has
always been considered as a "good debt," because it presumably leads to a
well- paying career. But for some, it’s becoming just the opposite.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/09/20/student-loan-debt-surpasses-credit-card-debt/

Gordon's
Comments: This tidbit of information
(Student
Loan Debt Surpasses
Credit) seems to support the hypothesis or theory
that Student Loan debt is a 'real' problem with a genuinely high default
rate due to unreasonable and/or unconstitutional terms and conditions –in
spite of any 'official' figures to the
contrary.

It is important to note that
while these two types of debt weigh roughly equally upon the citizenry,
media coverage of credit cards exceeds coverage of student loans by a
factor of approximately 15-to-1 based on unscientific news surveys
conducted since 2007. Source: http://studentloanjustice.org/press_release8-6-10.html

Gordon's
Comments: This disparity in news coverage between
'credit card' debt and 'Student Loan' debt might explain, in part, why the
Student Loan crisis has been allowed to proceed
unchecked.

Government Cashes In On
Defaulted Student Loans

Defaulting on student loans
can be a nightmare for borrowers but, according to the Wall Street
Journal, the practice is a boon to the national bank account. Every time a
student defaults on a loan, the government can earn thousands of dollars
more in interest than if the loan had been paid in earnest over time --
and one expert says this gives the government a "perverted incentive" to
watch as loans default. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of FinAid.org,
provided the Journal with an example of how the government profits from
defaults: According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44
more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been
paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been
paid back in 10 years...Defaulting on student loans carries severe
consequences for borrowers, including ineligibility for future federal
aid. The loans are are almost never discharged, even in the event of a
borrower's death.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/05/government-cashes-in-on-d_n_804582.html

Gordon's
Comments: This conflict of interest here that the U.S.
Government has for student loans to default might explain, in part, why
the government has NOT tried harder to put a stop to this oppression:
Their conflict of interest, here, is a financial motive for the student to
fail.

Government Sees High
Returns On Defaulted Student Loans

According to White House
budget figures for fiscal 2011 ending in September, the federal government
expects gross recovery of between $1.10 and $1.22 for every dollar of
defaulted student loans...While students may default on their loans, it is
nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt, even in bankruptcy. The
government can garnish a borrower's wages, withhold tax returns and siphon
off Social Security and disability payments in order to recover the funds.
Collection costs stretch out the defaulted loan's term, with those
payments taking precedence over principal reduction. That, in turn,
allows the government to tack on extra interest.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html

Gordon's
Comments: There is sometimes an 85% return-rate cited
regarding Student Loans ("After paying the companies that actually
collect the loans and other costs, the U.S. Department of Education
expects to recover 85% of defaulted federal loan dollars based on current
value," from the
same article), in which the Government is said to get 85% or so of
defaulted loans paid back, through such things as garnishing one's
paycheck, social security check, etc., but this does not account for
interest and fees, which appear to drive the figures up. What is not clear
is whether or not this pushes the total principle up enough to make up for
the fees that the collection agencies get, so that the government gets
more than 100% of the original loan. That is, 122% is gross return, but it
is not clear if the net return is more than 100%.
However, I suspect it
is, since
this may refer to 85% of an "inflated" principal payment, one that grew
larger due to capitolised interest, thus making it over 100% of the
original loan. The prior source
("Government Cashes In On Defaulted Student
Loans," Huffington
Post) seems to
support this analysis.

Few students can afford to pay
for college without some form of education financing. Two-thirds (65.6%)
of 4-year undergraduate students graduated with a Bachelor's degree and
some debt in 2007-08, and the average student loan debt among graduating
seniors was $23,186 (excluding PLUS Loans but including Stafford, Perkins,
state, college and private loans). Among graduating 4-year undergraduate
students who applied for federal student aid, 86.3% borrowed to pay for their
education and the average cumulative debt was $24,651. Source: http://www.finaid.org/loans/

Gordon's
Comments: This is important because once we know how
many students there are, we can then directly calculate the number of
students who took out loans. While the 86.3% refers only to 4-year
Undergrad students, probably about the same percentage (or even more) of
vocational/technical students must borrow, since there is typically less
scholarship monies for vocational schools. So, let's be conservative and
take 90% as the total number of students who must take out loans to go to
institutions of Higher
Education.

This table from the NCES
(National Center for Education Statistics) gives the number of first-time
freshmen enrolling in fall 2004 as 2,630,000. This includes both 2-year
and 4-year colleges. 2004 is the most recent year for which these
statistics are available from the NCES.

NCES: Digest of Education
Statistics Tables and Figures

Sources: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_179.asp

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/771417.html

citing: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_179.asp

Gordon's
Comments: This figure is important because it is a
benchmark estimate of how many 'total' students enter college each year
–inclusive of both 2-year (vocational/technical) and 4-year ('regular'
bachelor degree) colleges &
universities.

Table 28. Actual and
alternative projected numbers for bachelor’s degrees, by sex of recipient:
1993–94 through 2018–19 [page 74]

Actual (Total: Men and Women)
2006–07...1,524,092

Source:http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009062.pdf

Gordon's
Comments: This figure is only for 4-year bachelor
degree colleges, but it can be used to make sure the 'total' figure from
Ed.gov above is reasonable. Let's see here: 1,524,092 is the actual number
of bachelor's degree students who were in college in the 2006-07 school
year, and this is a little bit less than the 'total' 2004 figure of
2,630,000 given by the Dept of Education, above. Thus, these figures seem
to agree with one another and seem reasonable.

Data from The Institute for
College Access and Success shows that the number of students who graduate
with at least $40,000 in student loans increased nine-fold between 1996
and 2008.

Sally Raskoff at Everyday
Sociology offers some explanations for the data: (1) College has been
getting more expensive; among other reasons, states cut education budgets.
(2) For-profit colleges have also become a larger proportion of all
colleges and students in these colleges are more likely to take out loans.
(3) Given a bad economy, students are less likely to have jobs while in
school. Other explanations? Stories?

Source: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/05/23/number-of-college-students-owing-40000-in-school-loans-1996-2008/

Gordon's
Comments: This data shows a historic trend towards
disaster, and it thus becomes useful in projections: We are in deep, deep
dooky. (Note: While this is a little humour here with the colourful 'deep
dooky' language, it is meant more to help remember a specific and
important fact: Studies show that when a person becomes emotional –as you
might become when you laugh out loud about the 'deep dooky' comment,
he/she generally can retain long-term memory of items more easily. Other
emotions thought to evoke this phenomenon, besides humour, are love, fear,
and anger. So, this colourful language stays –in this official report: We
are, economically-speaking, in deep
dooky.-Editor

According to the National
Center for Educational Statistics, 18.2 million students enrolled in
college in 2007. Overall, around 39% of 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled
in college that year, and an additional 447,000 students were attending
non-degree institutions of higher learning.

Sources: http://howtoedu.org/college-facts/how-many-people-go-to-college-every-year/

citing: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

Gordon's
Comments: This shows total numbers of Higher Ed
(college/university) students enrolled in a recent given school year, 2007
in this case: 18.2 Million college students and 0.447 Million "non-degree"
institutions of higher ed total 18.647 Million in sum for 2007.
Analysis: If there were 2,630,000 first-time freshmen
enrolling in fall 2004 (Ed.gov figures) and 18,647,000 total students
enrolled, that means that 1st-time freshmen constituted about 14.1%, or
about 1-in-7 of all students. This is reasonable because, besides these
freshmen, you have sophomores, juniors, seniors, masters, and doctoral
students –as well as both vocational and non-degree-institution students.
THEREFORE, all figures cited above seem to agree with
one another, and thus they seem reasonable when looked at from any
angle.

RESULTS:

Gordon's
FINAL
Comments: Now, let's analyse these figures & see
what (truth) we
find...

The U.S.
Population was estimated to be 311,666,453 at any given time in the near
past, present, or future.

At any
given time (in the same era: the near past, present, or future –thus the
figures are comparable), there are about 18,647,000 total students
enrolled in institutions of Higher
Education.

We
estimate that about 90% of these students must take out loans to proceed
with their education.

The
total number of students with student loans (about 90% of the total
students enrolled at any given time) is about
16,782,300.

Of the
approximately 16,782,300 students with student loans, about some will
eventually default, and we rely on earlier figures to
estimate.

Although
a whopping 46.3 percent of federal loans distributed to students at
for-profit colleges in 2008 are expected to eventually go into default,
let's be conservative and remember that, when considering total figures,
only about 41% of the borrowers faced the negative consequences of
delinquency or default, and this is the 'relevant' figure since, for
every borrower who defaults, there are at least two others who were also
delinquent on their student loans, but successfully avoided
default.

Of the
approximately 16,782,300 students with student loans, we can
conservatively expect about 41% to default, and this is about 6,880,743
students total.

The
total number of students in America at any given time who will
eventually go into default (6,880,743) represent only about 2.21% of the
total U.S. Population (311,666,453), not near as many as the percentage
of African American slaves (12.57%) in the total U.S. Population right
before the American Civil
War.

CONCLUSIONS:

Therefore, since the percentage of oppressed
students (2.21% of total population –or 1-in-45 -a
conservative estimate: the actual number is probably somewhat
higher) in debt slavery (or indentured servitude)
is currently far less than that of the African American slaves during
the Civil War era (12.57% –or 1-in-8 -of total contemporary
Civil War era U.S.
population), we can reasonably conclude that, absent
massive news media pressure –or a miracle, we can
not expect any change of the status quo whereby
the banks and lenders cease and desist profiting off of students simply
trying to better themselves and have a chance to get a job –students who
have little choice but to go to college and pursue a higher education.
Also, since African American slaves were treated worse, even than
college students in default, then, we can not expect as much societal
pressure to enact change on behalf of oppressed students. But, data from
The Institute for College Access and Success shows that the number of
students who graduate with at least $40,000 in student loans increased
nine-fold between 1996 and 2008, and this trend
directly impacts upon suicide rates among distressed students: As the
suicide
rate (and
other social injury & economy woes) directly attributable to
distress from Student Loans going into default continues to rise
(as we
might expect from these "nine-fold increase" trends –and worsening
economy), we might also expect the 2.21% figure for
distressed "Student Loan" borrowers as a percentage of total U.S.
Population to increase to 5% (1-in-20) in the near future. Furthermore,
the 5% projected figure here only refers to distressed Student Loan
borrowers, and does not include any other economically or socially
oppressed class. The true numbers of oppressed Americans, when
calculating totals from all social strata is easily 15% at present –the
same percentage of oppressed African American slaves –and thus is it not
untenable to expect social unrest and/or violence and/or an uptick in
suicide rates and stress-related health problems in the near future.
This projected social and financial unrest would reasonably (and
hopefully) be expected to place more pressure to enact positive change
on behalf of oppressed students and other oppressed classes of American
citizens. – Calling it what it is: After at least partly eradicating
racial oppression, we have now found a new class of slaves: economic
slavery/oppression.

(personal notes: private
email)

Subject: Interesting comparison between % of slaves
& % of 'debt' slaves.
Hmm...

Alan:

You've heard of 'Godwin's Law' (aka 'Godwin's
Rule'), which states that as an online argument grows longer and more
heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf
Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of
invoking Godwin's Law then *supposedly* forfeits the
argument.

However, what I'm going to try and
invent here is 'The Gordon Rule' (no, not the one which
requires students to write 3000 words in order to receive liberal studies
credit, but rather), a slavery analogue to the Godwin's Law, except
in this case, I hope to win the argument.

I hypothesise that the percentage of
slave-debt indentured servitude students viz-a-viz the total student
population is approaching (or maybe has surpassed?) the percentage of
African American slaves viz-a-viz the total population of that era...
and, I think that we won't have a Student Loan Default 'revolution' until
the total percentage of 'debt slaves' equal pretty close to the same
percentage of African American slaves -at which time we had the 'American'
revolution.

So, I'm compiling data --still not fully
analysed yet, but here's the raw data --I've now got enough raw data
now to actually study. -- Here's a copy for you, should you find it
useful. -- See the attached -- or inline text
below:

[[39]] College tuition in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation,
search

The term college tuition refers to fees that students have to
pay to colleges in the United States. Pay
increases in the U.S. have caused chronic controversy since shortly after
World War II. Except
for its military academies, the U.S. federal government does not directly
support higher education.
Instead it has offered programs of loans and grants, dating back to the Morrill
Act during the U.S. Civil War
and the "G.I. Bill"
programs implemented after World War II. Developed
countries whose national governments directly support higher education
tend toward more moderate patterns of change in college tuitions and different
forms of controversy.

Contents

1 Causes

1.1 Bubble
Theory

1.2 Cost shifting and
Privatization

1.3 Student
Loan

1.4 Lack of consumer
protection

1.5 Additional
factors

1.6 Recommendations

2 Historical
trends

3 Recent
trends

4 Disproportional
inflation of college costs

5 Economic and social
concerns

5.1 Economic
concerns

5.2 Social
concerns

6 Student loan
debt

7 See also

8 References and
notes

9 External
links

Causes

Bubble Theory

Main article: Higher
education bubble

The view that higher education is a bubble is controversial. Most
economists do not think the returns to college education are
falling.[2]
In a financial bubble, assets like houses are sometimes purchased
with a view to reselling at a higher price, and this can produce
rapidly escalating prices as people speculate on future prices. An
end to the spiral can provoke abrupt selling of the assets,
resulting in an abrupt collapse in price — the bursting of the
bubble. Because the asset acquired through college attendance — a
higher education — cannot be sold (only rented through wages), there
is no similar mechanism that would cause an abrupt collapse in the
value of existing degrees. For this reason, many people[who?]
find this analogy misleading. However, one rebuttal to the claims
that a bubble analogy is misleading is the observation that the
'bursting' of the bubble are the negative effects on students who
incur student debt, for example, as the American Association of
State Colleges and Universities reports that "Students are deeper in
debt today than ever before...The trend of heavy debt burdens
threatens to limit access to higher education, particularly for
low-income and first-generation students, who tend to carry the
heaviest debt burden. Federal student aid policy has steadily put
resources into student loan programs rather than need-based grants
(see graph), a trend that straps future generations with high debt
burdens. Even students who receive federal grant aid are finding it
more difficult to pay for college."[3]

Cost
shifting and Privatization

Study comparing college revenue
per student by tuition and state funding in 2008 dollars.[1]

See also: Privatization and
Private
university

One proposed cause of increased tuition is the reduction of state and
federal appropriations to colleges thus making them shift the cost over
to students in the form of higher tuition.[4][5]
This has mostly applied to public universities which in 2011 for the first
time have taken in more in tuition than in state funding[5]
and had the greatest increases in tuition[1].
Implied from this shift away from public funding to tuition is
privatization, although the New York Times reports such claims are
exaggerated.[5]

Student Loan

Another proposed cause of increased tuition is U.S. Congress'
occasional raising of the 'loan limits' of student loans, in which the
increased availability of students to take out deeper loans sends a
message to colleges and universities that students can 'afford more,' and
then, in response, institutions of higher education raise tuition to
match, leaving the student back where he began, but deeper in debt.
Therefore, if the students are able to afford a much higher amount than
the free market would
otherwise support for students without the ability to take out a loan,
then the tuition is 'bid up' to the new, higher, level that the student
can now afford with loan subsidies.[6]
One rebuttal to that theory is the fact that even in years when loan
limits have not risen, tuition has still continued to climb.[7][8]
However, that may not disprove this proposed cause: It may simply mean
that other factors besides 'loan limit' increases played a part in the
increases in tuition.

Lack of
consumer protection

A third, novel, theory claims that the recent change in federal law
removing all standard consumer protections (truth in lending, bankruptcy
proceedings, statutes of limits, etc.) strips students of the ability to
declare bankruptcy, and, in response, the lenders and colleges know that
students, defenseless to declare bankruptcy, are on the hook for any
amount that they borrow -including late fees and interest (which can be
capitalized and increase the principal loan amount), thus removing the
incentive to provide the student with a reasonable loan that he/she can
pay back.[7][8]
Under this theory, it would be more profitable for the lender if the
student defaulted (due to the increases in the amount of the loan after
fees and interest are capitalized), and thus there is no free
market pressure-type motive for the lender or the college to help the
student avoid default. This is especially true because the government, if
it is the lender or guarantor of the loan, has the ability to garnish the
borrower's wages, tax return, and Social Security Disability income
without a court order.[9]
Some have called the Federal Government 'predatory' for making loans which
will have such a high default rate, since the default rate for Student
Loans is projected to reach 46.3% of all federal loans disbursed to
students at for-profit colleges in 2008.[10][11]

Additional
factors

Other factors[4]
that have been implicated in increased tuition include the following:

The practice of 'tuition discounting,' in which a college awards
financial aid from its own funds. This assistance to low-income
students by the college or university means that 'paying' students
have to 'make up' for the difference: Increased tuition. This factor
becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays
are going to college, which means that there are less State and
Federal grant funds available per student.

According to Mark Kantrowitz, a recognised expert in this area,
"The most significant contributor to tuition increases at public and
private colleges is the cost of instruction. It accounts for a quarter
of the tuition increase at public colleges and a third of the increase
at private colleges."

Kantriwitz' study also found that "Complying with the increasing
number of regulations – in particular, with the reporting requirements
– adds to college costs," thus contributing to a rise in tuition to
pay for these additional costs.

Recommendations

Based on the available data, a number of recommendations to address
rising tuition have been advanced by both experts and consumer and
students' rights advocates:

Colleges and universities should look for ways to reduce costs of
instructor and administrator expenditures (e.g., cut salaries and/or
reduce staff).[12][13]

State and Federal governments should increase appropriations,
grants, and contracts to colleges and universities.[12][14][15]

Federal, state, and local governments should reduce the regulatory
burden on colleges and universities.[4]

The Federal Government should enact partial or total loan
forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans.[13][16][17][18]

Federal Lawmakers should return standard consumer protections
(truth in lending, bankruptcy proceedings, statutes of limitations,
etc.) to Student Loans which were removed by the passage of the
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-394, enacted October 22,
1994), which amended the FFELP (Federal Family Education Loan
Program).[13][19][20]

Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay
for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the
amount a student may borrow.[13][21][22]

Regulatory or legislative action to lower or freeze the tuition,
such as Canada's tuition freeze
model, should be enacted by federal lawmakers:[23]

More research should be done: Recognised financial expert, Mark
Kantrowitz, issued the following recommendations[4]:

"The National Center for Education Statistics should increase
the frequency of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study to
annual, from triennial, in order to permit more timely tracking of
the factors affecting tuition rate increases. Likewise, NCES
(National Center for Education Statistics) should take steps to
improve the efficiency of the data collection and publication for
the Digest of Education Statistics, so that all tables will include
more recent data. The most recent data listed in some tables is five
years old."

"The US Department of Education should study the relationship
between increases in average EFC (Expected Family Contribution)
figures and average tuition rates. In addition, it would be
worthwhile to examine how historical average EFC figures have
changed relative to family income when measured on a current and
constant dollar basis for each income
quartile."

Lastly, in order to offset the costs of tuition, some colleges
help students in job searches and job placement after graduation.[24]

Historical
trends

The first chart compares standard undergraduate annual
tuition and fees charged by major U.S. public, U.S. private and Canadian public 4-year
college, showing both current U.S. dollars
during the years from 1940 to 2000 and U.S. dollars adjusted to the year
2000 by using the U.S. Consumer Price
Index series.[25][26][27]

Tuition at the University of
Toronto tracked close to inflation rates during the entire period.[28]
The University of
Iowa had rapid increases in tuition during the 1950s and then tracked
close to inflation rates since that time.[29]
The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), among the most expensive of the private
U.S. educational institutions throughout the 20th century,[30]
had continual large tuition increases, dipping slightly below inflation
rates only during the World War II years.[31][32]

Over the 60-year period charted, the inflation-adjusted, long term,
annual increases in tuition at these institutions were 0.4 percent for the
University of Toronto, 1.4 percent for the University of Iowa, and 2.1
percent for MIT.[33]
Other institutions in the same categories differ in details but not in
general patterns.[34]
The results of the trends are that over the 60 years shown, adjusted for
inflation, the tuition at the University of Iowa increased by a factor of
2.3 and that at MIT by a factor of 3.6, while tuition at the University of
Toronto rose only about 30 percent.[35]

Recent trends

This chart compares average undergraduate tuition and fees charged by
about 600 U.S. public and 1,350 U.S. private, non-profit 4-year colleges
during years from 1993 through 2004.,[36]
both unadjusted and adjusted to the year 2004 by using the U.S. Consumer Price
Index series. Data were not available for years 1994, 1995 and
1999.

During the 11-year period charted, both public and private, nonprofit
colleges regularly posted tuition increases well above inflation rates.
Peak increases for private colleges were in 1997, after the U.S. economy
began booming growth. Peak increases for public colleges were in 2003,
after state budgets supporting most of them were crimped by a sharp
economic recession. Over this period, annual, inflation-adjusted tuition
increases at public colleges averaged 4.0 percent, while those at private,
non-profit colleges averaged 3.5 percent. Cumulative results over this
period are average public tuitions growing 53 percent above inflation, and
average private, nonprofit tuitions growing 47 percent above inflation. As
of 2004, private, nonprofit colleges cost on average 3.3 times as much as
public colleges attended by residents of their states.

Disproportional inflation of college costs

"Disproportional inflation" refers to inflation in a particular
economic sector that is substantially greater than inflation in general
costs of living. This kind of inflation for medical costs in recent
decades is well known. However, that of college tuition and fees exceeds
that of medical costs.

The following graph shows the inflation rates of general costs of
living (for urban consumers; the CPI-U), medical costs (medical costs
component of the consumer price
index (CPI)), and college and tuition and fees for private four-year
colleges (from College Board data)
from 1978 to 2008. All rates are computed relative to 1978.

Cost of living increased roughly 3.25-fold during this time;
medical costs inflated roughly 6-fold; but college tuition and fees
inflation approached 10-fold. Another way to say this is that
whereas medical costs inflated at twice the rate of cost-of-living,
college tuition and fees inflated at four times the rate of
cost-of-living inflation. Thus, even after controlling for the
effects of general inflation, 2008 college tuition and fees posed
three times the burden as in 1978.

According to "College Board", the average tuition price for a
4-year public college in 2008-2009 is now $6,585 compared to 2004
where the price was slightly above $5,000. The average price of
in-state tuition vs out-of-state tuition for 2008-2009 was $6,585
for a in-state 4-year college to $17,452 for out-of-state 4 year
college (collegeboard.com).

Economic
and social concerns

Economic
concerns

Long-term price trends make higher education an especially
inflationary sector of the U.S. economy, with tuition increases in
recent years sometimes outpacing even explosive health care
sectors.[38]
These trends are sources of continuing controversy in the United
States over costs of higher education[39]
and their potential for limiting the country's achievements in
democracy, fairness and social justice.[40]

[37]

Today, some companies offer tuition reimbursement to students.

Social concerns

Besides economic effects of rapidly increasing debt burdens placed on
students, social ramifications are felt. One of these is the increase in
suicides directly attributable to the stress related to distressed and
defaulted student loans.[41][42][43][44]

Student loan
debt

A closely related issue is the alarming increase in student borrowing
to finance college education and resulting student loan debt. In
the 2007-2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), the median
cumulative debt among graduating 4-year undergraduate students was
$19,999; one quarter borrowed $30,526 or more, and one tenth borrowed
$44,668 or more.[45]
In fact, for the first time in the history of America, 'Student Loan' debt
has surpassed 'Credit Card' debt.[9]

Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that students are still
getting good value for their investment in an education.[citation
needed] Since the mid-1980s, education has played a
large part in potential wages,[citation
needed] with bachelor's degree holders taking home an
average of 38% more than those with only a high school diploma.[citation
needed] While college-educated workers' wages have
increased over the past two decades, those with only a high school
education have seen decreases in annual salaries in the same time
period.[46]

The material in this table is additional commentary, and not
part of the original Wikipedia article.--Editor.

* There is also substantial evidence that students are not
getting good value for their investment in an education. Some
colleges and universities in the United States are now participating
in grade inflation. --
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/chart-its-easier-ever-get-good-grades-college/39986

* Some economists believe that too many people attend college.
--
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/05/education

* Not all positions require an individual to obtain a college
degree. College students who have acquired a burden of college debt
often risk defaulting on their student loans which can lower the
individual's credit score. --
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/jeremy-simon-default-cosign-student-loan-credit-score-1508.php

* Some employers will be reluctant to hire an individual with
bad credit. -- http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/how-bad-credit-can-cost-you-a-job.aspx

* Even though the U.S. spends more on education than most other
developed countries, and the U.S. has a disproportionate share of
the top-ranked universities in the world, America *still* has a low
quality of Higher Education. --
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-.html

[*] "U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test,"
Maria Glod, Washington Post, Dec 5, 2007; Page A07 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
[*]
"U.S. falls in education rank compared to other countries," Elaine
Wu (U-Wire), 10-04-2005, The Kapi‘o Newspress http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22falls+in+education+rank+compared+to+other+countries%22+%22Elaine+Wu%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
And http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22falls+in+education+rank+compared+to+other+countries%22+%22Elaine+Wu%22&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-832
(Key phrases search: "falls in education rank compared to other
countries" "Elaine Wu")
[*] "U.S. slips lower in coding contest:
In what could be an ominous sign for the U.S. tech industry,
American universities slipped lower in an international programming
contest," Ed Frauenheim, News.com, Posted on ZDNet News: Apr 7, 2005
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-142206.html

End of additional comments found in later versions of said
article but not in the one so cited.--Editor

The U.S. spends more on education than most other developed countries,
and the U.S. has a disproportionate share of the top-ranked universities
in the world.[47]

See also

EdFund

Free education

Higher
education bubble

Higher
Education Price Index

Post-secondary
education

Private
university

Student benefit

Student debt

Student
loans in the United States

Tuition agency

Tuition center

Tuition fees

Tuition
freeze

References and
notes

^ a
b
"Trends in College Spending 1998-2008" Delta Cost
Project.

^
Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz (2008).
The Race Between Education and Technology. The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.

^
Hillman, Nick (2006). "Student Debt Burden, Volume 3, Number 8, August 2006".
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/v3n8.pdf.

^ a
b
c
d
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^ a
b
c
"Public Universities Relying More on Tuition Than State
Money", The New York Times

^
"Federal
Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal Stafford
Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase". gao.gov.
2011. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-470R.

^ a
b
"Student Loans in Bankruptcy". lawyers.com. 2011. http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/consumer-bankruptcy/Student-Loans-In-Bankruptcy.html.

^ a
b
"Student Loan Bankruptcy Options". money-zine.com.
2011. http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/College-Loan/Student-Loan-Bankruptcy-Options.

^ a
b
Dvorkin, Howard (2010). "Student Loan Debt Surpasses Credit Card Debt-What to
Do?". foxbusiness.com. http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/09/20/student-loan-debt-surpasses-credit-card-debt.

^
"46 Percent Of Federal Loans Paid To For-Profit
Institutions Will Go Into Default". huffingtonpost.com/AOL.com.
2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/46-percent-default-rate-o_n_800283.html.

^
Turner, Katrina (2010). "Subject: Default Rates for Cohort Years 2004-2008".
ifap.ed.gov. http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/122010CDRlifetimerate2010.html.

^ a
b
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^ a
b
c
d
Watts, GordonWayne (2011). "Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on
either extreme". ThirstForJustice.net. http://thirstforjustice.net/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html.

^
"Affordable
Higher Education: Student Debt". U.S. PIRG. 2011. http://www.uspirg.org/higher-education.

^
"Fight to Protect Students and Taxpayers Moves to Senate! -
House Voted to Slash Pell Grants and Block Gainful Employment Rule".
ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2011. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_3711.vp.html.

^
Applebaum, Robert (2009). "The Proposal". ForgiveStudentLoanDebt.com. http://forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/proposal.

^
"Real Loan Forgiveness". ProjectOnStudentDebt.org.
2011. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/initiative_view.php?initiative_idx=8.

^
"Take Action for Real Loan Forgiveness!".
ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2009. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_61909.vp.html.

^
Collinge, Alan (2011). "Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Bill... The 4th
Attempt". StudentLoanJustice.org. http://studentloanjustice.org/action-room.htm.

^
"Bankruptcy Relief for Private Student Loan Borrowers
Advances". ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2010. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_91610.vp.html.

^
"Affordable
Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies". U.S. PIRG. 2011. http://www.uspirg.org/higher-education.

^
"Commission: Private Loans are Not the Solution!".
ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2006. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_8706.vp.html.

^
"Commission Calls for "Reduced Debt Burden" -- Time for
Education Department to Act". ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2006. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_81806.vp.html.

^
"Top 10 Job Placement Colleges: INFORMATION AND TIPS ON
INTERNSHIPS AND PAID INTERNSHIP". CollegeTips.com. 2011. http://www.collegetips.com/college-money/college-job-placement.php.

^
"Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Dept. of Labor". Consumer Price Index. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

^
Powell, James (2006). "Bank of Canada". A History of the Canadian Dollar. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/dollar_book/index.html.

^
To show a wide range of tuitions, the chart's vertical axis is
logarithmic. The span between two horizontal lines is a factor of ten.

^
"Canadian Association of University Teachers".
Education Review 4(1), Sept, 2002, p. 2, Table 1. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chapter_txt-15.html.

^
"University of Iowa". Fact Sheet, 2005. http://www.library.uni.edu/speccoll/unifacts.html.

^
For background on the emergence of MIT and other U.S. research
universities, see Geiger, Roger L. (1986).
To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities,
1900-1940. Oxford University Press.

^
"MIT Undergraduate
Association". The Tech, 1994-2006. http://tech.mit.edu/.

^
"MIT Undergraduate
Association". The Tech, Archives, 1881-2009. http://tech.mit.edu/browse.html.

^
Resident tuition rates are charted for public institutions; fees are
averaged; nonresident rates are typically higher.

^
Note the qualitatively similar patterns in inflation-adjusted tuitions
for three periods: 1940-1950, 1950-1980 and 1980-2000.

^
After 1960, these patterns show gradually widening ratios of
private-school to public-school tuition, but some public systems saw
tuition increases similar to those of the 1950s in Iowa during different
decades.

^
"National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of
Education". Average institutional charges for tuition and
required fees. http://nces.ed.gov/quicktables/result.asp?SrchKeyword=institutional+charges+for+tuition&topic=All.

^
Data sources listed in Uebersax, John
(2009-07-15). "College Tuition: Inflation or Hyperinflation?". http://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/college-tuition-hyperinflation/. Retrieved 2009-07-15.

^
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. (2002). Tuition
Rising: Why College Costs So Much. Harvard University
Press.

^
Kane, Thomas J. (1999). The Price of
Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Brookings
Institution Press.

^
Bowen, William G., Tobin, Eugene M.,
Kurzweil, Martin A., and Pichler, Susanne C. (2005). Equity And
Excellence In American Higher Education. University of Virginia
Press.

^
"Higher Ed NewsWeekly (p.57)". Illinois Board of Higher
Education. 2007. http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/NewsDigest/NewsWeekly/092807.pdf.

^
"Student Loan Debt Drives Man to Suicide". Newsalert,
citing The Chicago Sun-Times. 2007. http://nalert.blogspot.com/2007/09/student-loan-debt-drives-man-to-suicide.html.

^
Lewis, Libby (2007). "A Pastor's Student Loan Debt". NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11980696.

^
Collinge, Alan (2007). "Company’s march toward student loan monopoly scary".
TheNewsTribune.com. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2007/06/19/90638/companys-march-toward-student.html.

^
http://www.finaid.org/loans/

^
http://education-portal.com/articles/How_Much_More_Do_College_Graduates_Earn_Than_Non-College_Graduates.html

^
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-.html

External links

"College, Inc.", PBS FRONTLINE
documentary, May 4, 2010

U.S.
Dept. of Education

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&oldid=455118718"

Categories:

Universities
and colleges in the United States

Education
finance in the United States

Higher
education in the United States

Education
economics

Hidden categories:

All
articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

Articles
with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from June 2011

All
articles with unsourced statements

Articles
with unsourced statements from July 2011

Personal tools

Log
in / create account

Namespaces

Article

Discussion

Variants

Views

Read

Edit

View
history

Actions

Search

Navigation

Main page

Contents

Featured
content

Current
events

Random article

Donate
to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community
portal

Recent
changes

Contact
Wikipedia

Toolbox

What
links here

Related
changes

Upload file

Special
pages

Permanent
link

Cite
this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

This page was last modified on 11 October
2011 at 23:02.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of use
for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact
us

Privacy
policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile
view

Higher education bubble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation,
search

The higher education bubble is a speculative boom and bust
phenomenon in the field of higher education.
According to the theory, while college tuition payments
are rising, the rate of return of a
college degree is decreasing,[1]
and the soundness of the student loan industry
may be threatened by increasing default rates.[2]
College students who fail to find employment at the level
needed to pay back their loans in a reasonable amount of time have been
compared to the debtors under sub-prime
mortgages whose home are worth less than what is owed to the bank.[3]

In 1987, U.S.
Secretary of Education William Bennett
first suggested that the availability of loans may in fact be fueling an
increase in tuition prices and an education bubble.[4]
This "Bennett hypothesis" claims that readily available loans allow
schools to increases tuition prices without regard to demand
elasticity. College
rankings are partially driven by spending levels,[5]
and higher tuition prices are correlated with increased public perceptions
of prestige.[6]
Over the past thirty years, demand has increased as institutions improved
facilities and provided more resources to students.[7]
Additionally, schools tend to enroll fewer students as they improve
student offerings and increase prices. This suggests that it is in
schools' best interest to increase tuition prices as much as possible, so
long as financial aid ensures an ability to pay on the part of students
and parents.

A 2009 article in The
Chronicle of Higher Education related concern from parents
wondering whether it is worth the price to send their children to
college.[8]
The Economist in
turn hypothesized that the bubble bursting may make it harder for colleges
to fill their classes, and that some building projects will come to a
halt.[9]
The Boston Herald
further suggested the possibility of mergers,
closures and even bankruptcies of smaller colleges that have spent too
much and taken on too much debt.[10]
The National
Review proposed that the bubble bursting may also bring down
higher education prices.[11]
Glenn Reynolds
wrote in the Washington
Examiner that those who have financed their educations with debt
may be particularly hard-hit.[12]

Further speculation as to the higher education bubble was the focus of
a series of articles in The Economist in
2011.[13]

Contents

1 Controversy

1.1 Alternatives to
bubble theory

1.2 Additional
factors

1.3 Recommendations

2 See also

3 References and
notes

4 External
links

Controversy

Study comparing college revenue
per student by tuition and state funding in 2008 dollars.[14]

The view that higher education is a bubble is controversial. Most economists do not think
the returns to college
education are falling.[15]
In a financial bubble,
assets like houses are sometimes purchased with a view to reselling at a
higher price, and this can produce rapidly escalating prices as people
speculate on future prices. An end to the spiral can provoke abrupt
selling of the assets, resulting in an abrupt collapse in price — the
bursting of the bubble. Because the asset acquired through college
attendance — a higher education — cannot be sold (only rented through
wages), there is no similar mechanism that would cause an abrupt collapse
in the value of existing degrees. For this reason, many people[who?]
find this analogy misleading. However, one rebuttal to the claims that a
bubble analogy is misleading is the observation that the 'bursting' of the
bubble are the negative effects on students who incur student debt, for
example, as the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities reports that "Students
are deeper in debt today than ever before...The trend of heavy debt
burdens threatens to limit access to higher education, particularly for
low-income and first-generation students, who tend to carry the heaviest
debt burden. Federal student aid policy has steadily put resources into
student loan programs rather than need-based grants, a trend that straps
future generations with high debt burdens. Even students who receive
federal grant aid are finding it more difficult to pay for college."[16]

Alternatives
to bubble theory

A different proposal for the cause of rising tuition is the reduction
of state and federal appropriations to colleges making them rely more on
student tuition. Thus, it's not a bubble rather a form of shifting costs away
from state and federal funding over to students.[17]
This has mostly applied to public universities which in 2011 for the first
time have taken in more in tuition than in state funding,[17]
and had the greatest increases in tuition.[14]
Implied from this shift away from public funding to tuition is privatization,
although The New York
Times reported that such claims are exaggerated.[17]

Another proposed cause of increased tuition is U.S. Congress'
occasional raising of the 'loan limits' of student loans, in which the
increased availability of students to take out deeper loans sends a
message to colleges and universities that students can afford more, and
then, in response, institutions of higher education raise tuition to
match, leaving the student back where he began, but deeper in debt.
Therefore, if the students are able to afford a much higher amount than
the free market would
otherwise support for students without the ability to take out a loan,
then the tuition is 'bid up' to the new, higher, level that the student
can now afford with loan subsidies.[18]
One rebuttal to that theory is the fact that even in years when loan
limits have not risen, tuition has still continued to climb.[19][20]
However, that may not disprove this proposed cause: It may simply mean
that other factors besides 'loan limit' increases played a part in the
increases in tuition.

A third, novel, theory claims that the recent change in federal law
removing all standard consumer protections (truth in lending, bankruptcy
proceedings, statutes of limits, etc.) strips students of the ability to
declare bankruptcy, and, in response, the lenders and colleges know that
students, defenseless to declare bankruptcy, are on the hook for any
amount that they borrow -including late fees and interest (which can be
capitalized and increase the principal loan amount), thus removing the
incentive to provide the student with a reasonable loan that he/she can
pay back.[21][22]
Under this theory, it would be more profitable for the lender if the
student defaulted (due to the increases in the amount of the loan after
fees and interest are capitalized), and thus there is no free
market pressure-type motive for the lender or the college to help the
student avoid default. This is especially true because the government, if
it is the lender or guarantor of the loan, has the ability to garnish the
borrower's wages, tax return, and Social Security Disability income
without a court order. [23]
Some have called the Federal Government 'predatory' for making loans which
will have such a high default rate, since the default rate for Student
Loans is projected to reach 46.3% of all federal loans disbursed to
students at for-profit colleges in 2008.[24][25]

Additional
factors

Other factors[26]
that have been implicated in increased tuition include the following:

The practice of 'tuition discounting,' in which a college awards
financial aid from its own funds. This assistance to low-income
students by the college or university means that 'paying' students
have to 'make up' for the difference: Increased tuition. This factor
becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays
are going to college, which means that there are less State and
Federal grant funds available per student.

According to Mark Kantrowitz, a recognized expert in this area,
"The most significant contributor to tuition increases at public and
private colleges is the cost of instruction. It accounts for a quarter
of the tuition increase at public colleges and a third of the increase
at private colleges."

Kantriwitz' study also found that "Complying with the increasing
number of regulations – in particular, with the reporting requirements
– adds to college costs," thus contributing to a rise in tuition to
pay for these additional costs.

Recommendations

Based on the available data, a number of recommendations to address
rising tuition have been advanced by both experts and consumer and
students' rights advocates:

Colleges and universities should look for ways to reduce costs of
instructor and administrator expenditures (e.g., cut salaries and/or
reduce staff).[27][28]

State and Federal governments should increase appropriations,
grants, and contracts to colleges and universities.[29][30][31]

Federal, state, and local governments should reduce the regulatory
burden on colleges and universities.[32]

The Federal Government should enact partial or total loan
forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans.[33][34][35][36]

Federal Lawmakers should return standard consumer protections
(truth in lending, bankruptcy proceedings, statutes of limitations,
etc.) to Student Loans which were removed by the passage of the
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-394, enacted October 22,
1994), which amended the FFELP (Federal Family Education Loan
Program).[37][38][39]

Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay
for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the
amount a student may borrow.[40][41][42]

Regulatory or legislative action to lower or freeze the tuition,
such as Canada's tuition freeze
model, should be enacted by federal lawmakers:[43]

More research should be done: Recognized financial expert, Mark
Kantrowitz, issued the following recommendations[44]:

"The National Center for Education Statistics should increase
the frequency of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study to
annual, from triennial, in order to permit more timely tracking of
the factors affecting tuition rate increases. Likewise, NCES
(National Center for Education Statistics) should take steps to
improve the efficiency of the data collection and publication for
the Digest of Education Statistics, so that all tables will include
more recent data. The most recent data listed in some tables is five
years old."

"The US Department of Education should study the relationship
between increases in average EFC (Expected Family Contribution)
figures and average tuition rates. In addition, it would be
worthwhile to examine how historical average EFC figures have
changed relative to family income when measured on a current and
constant dollar basis for each income
quartile."

Lastly, in order to offset the costs of tuition, some colleges
help students in job searches and job placement after graduation.[45]

See also

College
tuition in the United States

EdFund

Free education

Higher
education

Higher
Education Price Index

Post-secondary
education

Private
university

Student benefit

Student debt

Student loan

Student
loans in the United States

Tuition agency

Tuition center

Tuition fees

Tuition
freeze

References and
notes

^
Bursting the Higher Ed Bubble, The Week, May 27,
2009, http://theweek.com/article/index/96989/Bursting_the_Higher_Ed_Bubble

^
Monica Brady-Myerov and Sonari Glinton, The
Education Bubble, wbur.org, http://www.wbur.org/specials/education-bubble

^
Bell, Steven
(05/06/2010), As the higher ed bubble nears bursting what is the
potential impact on libraries?, Library Journal, http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6728003.html

^
Our Greedy Colleges, The New York Times, Feb.
18, 1987, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html

^
How U.S. News Calculates the College Rankings,
US News and
World Report, 2010, http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/08/17/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings

^
Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective
College: An Application of Selection on Observables and
Unobservables, Dale, S. B. and Krueger, A. B., NBER, 1999, http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/409.pdf

^
The Credits that Count: How Credit Growth and Financial
Aid Affect College Tuition and Fees, Ley, K. and Keppo, J.,
SSRN, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1766549

^
Joseph Marr Cronin and Howard E. Horton (May 22, 2009),
Will Higher Education Be the Next Bubble to
Burst?, The Chronicle of Higher Education,
http://chronicle.com/article/Will-Higher-Education-Be-the/44400

^
The higher education bubble, The Economist, June
11, 2009, http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2009/06/the_higher_education_bubble

^
Fitzgerald, Jay
(May 31, 2009), Higher-education bubble could burst next, Boston
Globe, http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1175836

^
Popping the Higher-Education Bubble, National
Review, March 15, 2010, http://article.nationalreview.com/427786/popping-the-higher-education-bubble/dan-lips

^
Glenn Harlan
Reynolds (August 8, 2010), Further thoughts on the higher education bubble,
Washington Examiner, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Glenn-Harlan-Reynolds-Further-thoughts-on-the-college-tuition-bubble-100216064.html

^
Higher Education, The Latest Bubble? The Economist,
April 13, 2011

^ a
b
"Trends in College Spending 1998-2008" (PDF) Delta Cost
Project

^
Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz (2008).
The Race Between Education and Technology. The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.

^
Hillman, Nick (2006). "Student Debt Burden, Volume 3, Number 8, August 2006".
American
Association of State Colleges and Universities. http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/v3n8.pdf.

^ a
b
c
"Public Universities Relying More on Tuition Than State
Money", The New York
Times 2011/01/24

^
"Federal
Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, Enrollment, and Federal Stafford
Loan Borrowing Up to the 2007-08 Loan Limit Increase". gao.gov.
2011. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-470R.

^
"Student Loans in Bankruptcy". lawyers.com. 2011. http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/consumer-bankruptcy/Student-Loans-In-Bankruptcy.html.

^
"Student Loan Bankruptcy Options". money-zine.com.
2011. http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/College-Loan/Student-Loan-Bankruptcy-Options.

^
"Student Loan Bankruptcy Options". money-zine.com.
2011. http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/College-Loan/Student-Loan-Bankruptcy-Options.

^
"Student Loans in Bankruptcy". lawyers.com. 2011. http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/consumer-bankruptcy/Student-Loans-In-Bankruptcy.html.

^
Dvorkin, Howard (2010). "Student Loan Debt Surpasses Credit Card Debt-What to
Do?". foxbusiness.com. http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/09/20/student-loan-debt-surpasses-credit-card-debt.

^
"46 Percent Of Federal Loans Paid To For-Profit
Institutions Will Go Into Default". huffingtonpost.com/AOL.com.
2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/46-percent-default-rate-o_n_800283.html.

^
Turner, Katrina (2010). "Subject: Default Rates for Cohort Years 2004-2008".
ifap.ed.gov. http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/122010CDRlifetimerate2010.html.

^
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^
Watts, GordonWayne (2011). "Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on
either extreme". ThirstForJustice.net. http://thirstforjustice.net/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html.

^
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^
"Affordable
Higher Education: Student Debt". U.S. PIRG. 2011. http://www.uspirg.org/higher-education.

^
"Fight to Protect Students and Taxpayers Moves to Senate! -
House Voted to Slash Pell Grants and Block Gainful Employment Rule".
ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2011. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_3711.vp.html.

^
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^
Applebaum, Robert (2009). "The Proposal". ForgiveStudentLoanDebt.com. http://forgivestudentloandebt.com/content/proposal.

^
Watts, GordonWayne (2011). "Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on
either extreme". ThirstForJustice.net. http://thirstforjustice.net/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html.

^
"Real Loan Forgiveness". ProjectOnStudentDebt.org.
2011. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/initiative_view.php?initiative_idx=8.

^
"Take Action for Real Loan Forgiveness!".
ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2009. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_61909.vp.html.

^
Collinge, Alan (2011). "Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Bill... The 4th
Attempt". StudentLoanJustice.org. http://studentloanjustice.org/action-room.htm.

^
Watts, GordonWayne (2011). "Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on
either extreme". ThirstForJustice.net. http://thirstforjustice.net/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html.

^
"Bankruptcy Relief for Private Student Loan Borrowers
Advances". ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2010. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_91610.vp.html.

^
"Affordable
Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies". U.S. PIRG. 2011. http://www.uspirg.org/higher-education.

^
Watts, GordonWayne (2011). "Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on
either extreme". ThirstForJustice.net. http://thirstforjustice.net/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html.

^
"Commission: Private Loans are Not the Solution!".
ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2006. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_8706.vp.html.

^
"Commission Calls for "Reduced Debt Burden" -- Time for
Education Department to Act". ProjectOnStudentDebt.org. 2006. http://projectonstudentdebt.org/update_81806.vp.html.

^
Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases
in college tuition". FinAid. http://www.finaid.org/calculators/tuitionanalysis.pdf.

^
"Top 10 Job Placement Colleges: INFORMATION AND TIPS ON
INTERNSHIPS AND PAID INTERNSHIP". CollegeTips.com. 2011. http://www.collegetips.com/college-money/college-job-placement.php.

External links

"College, Inc.", PBS FRONTLINE
documentary, May 4, 2010

U.S.
Dept. of Education

This article relating to education is a stub. You can
help Wikipedia by expanding it.v · d · e

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education_bubble&oldid=455600113"

Categories:

Universities
and colleges in the United States

Education
finance in the United States

Higher
education in the United States

Education
economics

Education
stubs

Hidden categories:

All
articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

Articles
with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from June
2011

Personal tools

Log
in / create account

Namespaces

Article

Discussion

Variants

Views

Read

Edit

View
history

Actions

Search

Navigation

Main page

Contents

Featured
content

Current
events

Random article

Donate
to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community
portal

Recent
changes

Contact
Wikipedia

Toolbox

What
links here

Related
changes

Upload file

Special
pages

Permanent
link

Cite
this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

This page was last modified on 14 October
2011 at 22:03.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of use
for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact
us

Privacy
policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile
view

Contact: Gordon Wayne Watts
Editor-in-Chief, The Register

821 Alicia Road
Lakeland, FL
33801

* [email-masked] MAIN
* [email-masked] Alt.
(863)
688-9880 (main) ---

GordonWatts.com
GordonWayneWatts.com
# # #

Navigation:
* http://GordonWatts.com
* http://GordonWayneWatts.com
* http://GordonWayneWatts.BlogSpot.com
* http://YouTube.com/GordonWayneWatts
* http://Facebook.com/GordonWayneWatts
* http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html