The lifetime earning myth: go to college, make $1 million extra. The reality: recent college grads annually earn $7,415 more than high school grads.

Posted by Student on 2009/02/23 @ 0630 Comments (9) (show tags and categories)

In a recent article for Forbes Magazine, Kathy Kristof writes about “The Great College Hoax,” which debunks the premise that student debt will be offset by higher lifetime earnings. Kristof discusses the census finding that, on average, college-educated individuals earn $25,900 more per year than high school graduates, pointing out the fallacy of inferring too much about the reasons for this income discrepancy.

Student Loan Bubble sees a much more serious statistical error in this reasoning: recent graduates earn less at the beginning of their careers, and average (also called “mean”) earnings are a distorted representation of actual earnings. A few individuals (so-called outliers) who earn much more than the rest will distort the mean, while the median will be resistant to this problem. Wikipedia provides the following explanation of median versus mean:

The median is primarily used for skewed distributions, which it represents differently than the arithmetic mean. Consider the multiset { 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 9 }. The median is 2 in this case, as is the mode, and it might be seen as a better indication of central tendency than the arithmetic mean of 3.166.

Calculation of medians is a popular technique in summary statistics and summarizing statistical data, since it is simple to understand and easy to calculate, while also giving a measure that is more robust in the presence of outlier values than is the mean.

The following table, entitled “Earnings By Occupation and Education,” presents median yearly earnings for individuals aged 21-24, broken down by educational attainment. Click on the image for the full-size version. The original census data are available from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/call1usboth.html

student-loan-bubble-census-median-income

Students cannot expect to earn an “average” amount of money; in this case, the median is a much more accurate picture of reality. Among recent graduates, the median income discrepancy between college and high school grads is a mere $7,415, which is accompanied by tens of thousands in student debt repayment. Later in life, a college degree is “worth more,” but student debt repayment usually begins when the student is 21 or 22 years old; student lenders are not content to wait until the debtor earns a higher annual income.

It is the conclusion of Student Loan Bubble that the median income statistic deserves more attention, and that lifetime earnings are a misrepresentation of what recent graduates can expect to earn. Between college and high school graduates, loan debt uniquely affects the former, who do not earn dramatically more than the latter. College graduates in their early 20s are at unique risk of not earning enough to repay their student debts. The risk inherent in managing student loans as a young professional may not be offset by future earning potential.

Excerpt from: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060.html

Census figures show that college grads earn an average of $57,500 a year, which is 82% more than the $31,600 high school alumni make. Multiply the $25,900 difference by the 40 years the average person works and, sure enough, it comes to a tad over $1 million.

But anybody who has gotten a passing grade in statistics knows what’s wrong with this line of argument. A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college. To cite the extreme and obvious example: Bill Gates is rich because he knows how to run a business, not because he matriculated at Harvard. Finishing his degree wouldn’t have increased his income.

All the while students have been lulled into thinking of the extra $1 million that will be theirs, they have been forced to disgorge an ever larger fraction of it in pursuit of the degree. While the premium that college grads earn over high schoolers has remained relatively constant over the past five years, the cost of acquiring a degree has risen at twice the rate of inflation, dramatically undermining any value a sheepskin adds.

Offsetting that million-dollar income discrepancy is the $46,700 four-year cost of tuition, fees, books, room and board at a public school and $99,900 at a private one–even after financial aid, scholarships and grants. Add all this to the equation and college grads don’t pull even with high school grads in lifetime income until age 33 on average, the College Board says. Even that doesn’t include the $125,000 in pay students forgo over four years.

Regarding H.R.384: Consumer Protections for Student Borrowers

Posted by Student on 2009/02/19 @ 0630 Comments (0) (show tags and categories)

On January 26, 2009 a coalition including The Project on Student Debt sent the following letter to Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Congressman George Miller, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. Student Loan Bubble is reprinting the full text of the letter, formatted as HTML for the Internet, without additional commentary.

Dear Chairman Frank and Chairman Miller:

As representatives of students, consumers, colleges, administrators, and counselors, we want to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts to include consumer protections and accountability under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) through H.R.384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009.

We are writing about an urgent matter related to the planned roll-out of the TARP sub-program, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), in February. As you know, we are concerned about the planned allocation of TALF funds to private student loan providers. Private student loans are more risky and expensive than federal loans because of high variable interest rates and few consumer protections, and private loan lenders already enjoy special bankruptcy treatment under federal law. For these reasons, financial aid experts agree that private loans should only be a last resort for students. Additionally, we estimate that just eight percent of undergraduates use private student loans, and many of those borrowers have not exhausted their federal loan options.

To ensure that taxpayer dollars in the TALF program serve students and consumers as well as lenders, we ask you to urge the Secretary of Treasury to make the receipt of TALF funds for private student loan financing conditional upon adequate consumer protections and better data collection. Specific conditions that we believe are important for the Secretary implement include:

  1. Loan modification and/or work-out requirements, such as reductions in principal and economic hardship deferrals, for current and future private student loans;
  2. Discharges in cases of borrower death or severe disability, for current and future private student loans;
  3. Limits on interest rates, origination and other fees for future loans;
  4. Mandatory loan certification and inclusion of the FTC holder notice for future loans; and
  5. Detailed data reporting on individual future loans replicating the reporting required for Family Federal Education Loans (FFEL) pursuant to section 1092b(a) of 20 U.S.C..

A bailout for the providers of usurious private student loans will not solve the college affordability crisis caused by the failing economy, and will actually be detrimental to many students and consumers. However, if a form of rescue is provided for private student loans, it would be unconscionable to do so without also providing better consumer protections. Implementing these protections will help ensure that private lenders do not unfairly benefit from the bailout at the expense of past, present, and future students and their families.

We realize that there are many pressing issues requiring your attention during these difficult economic times, but respectfully request that you consider this issue a priority given the fast-approaching commencement of TALF fund disbursement.

Sincerely,

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers
American Association of Community Colleges
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Americans for Fairness in Lending
Campus Progress
Consumers Union
Dēmos: A Network for Ideas & Action
The Greenlining Institute
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of our low-income clients)
National Consumers League
The Project on Student Debt (an initiative of the Institute for College Access & Success)
National Association for College Admission Counseling
The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
U.S. Public Interest Research Groups
United States Students Association

What causes tuition to rise?

Posted by Student on 2009/02/18 @ 0630 Comments (0) (show tags and categories)

It’s funny how a question might take five words to ask, and require chapters to answer. Here’s one such question: “what causes tuition to rise?” Certainly, there are several factors that drive tuition prices, including:

  1. inflation – year after year, our currency is devalued as the monetary base is expanded, thereby reducing the purchasing power of our currency. This is reflected in the cost of all goods, although tuition appears to increase at a certain multiple of the rate of inflation.
  2. prestige – colleges seek to increase their prestige, as this is a critical factor that differentiates colleges from one another, and colleges may justifiably expend more money on prestige-related expenses (faculty hires, luxury construction, etc).
  3. student achievement – the quality of students is related to who submits applications, whose applications are accepted, and which students decide to attend. In attracting the highest quality students, colleges might offer tuition breaks to certain students, which they would offset by charging all students a generally higher tuition.
  4. resource provisioning – related to all of the previous factors, it is critical for colleges to provide resources to students to increase prestige and student achievement, but the amount expended on resources will be subject to inflation.
  5. available student credit – the capacity of students to “afford higher tuition” is related to the amount of credit that is available for students to borrow. This credit is subject to legislative pressures, and less influenced by traditional financing metrics (e.g. collateral, credit history).
  6. education legislation – the ability of lenders to take risks on financially unproven debtors (i.e. 17- and 18-year old students) is related to incentive programs that must be artificially inexpensive for lenders, which is not possible through free-market forces and must be driven by extra-market intervention through legislation.

Likely, there are other factors to include in this model, but this is a start.

The core question involves “what causes what.” Do colleges charge more because they must do so to grow their prestige, or can they grow prestige because students are able to pay more? Does it cost more to pay for school because schools provide more resources, because those resources cost more, or is this fundamentally unrelated? The number of different models that can be formed using the factors listed above only grows as more factors are identified. For now, Student Loan Bubble will look at existing work to see what others have identified, but this is a theme that Student Loan Bubble will revisit from time to time.

In the following New York Times piece, Glater describes certain consequences of the year-over-year increase in tuition, and some of the forces that drive it. It’s not a “grand unified theory of tuition” but many of the previously listed factors are reflected in this article. I was particularly interested to learn that lending at public schools is inversely related to state funding of those schools, such that students have historically made up the funding deficit through loans. State citizens will be exposed to the cost of public school funding through the taxes they pay, and reducing this form of exposure increases the costs that are shouldered by individuals. I also thought it was interesting that certain forms of low-income grants have decreased in recent years, and I am curious to know more about that causes for that.

Read on, and if you can think of other factors that influence tuition prices, please post a reply to this article.

Excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/education/23tuit…

“The average price of college is continuing to rise more rapidly than the consumer price index, more rapidly than prices in the economy,” Sandy Baum, a co-author of the report who is a senior policy analyst for the College Board and a professor at Skidmore College, told reporters at a news conference yesterday.

Ms. Baum added that the prices “are probably higher than most of us want.”

Those price increases reflect increases in the sticker price that colleges advertise, though, Ms. Baum said, the average student does not pay that full amount. At public universities, the average student gets about $3,600 in grants and tax benefits, lowering the actual cost to around $2,600. At private institutions, aid totals about $9,300, bringing the cost to $14,400.

But even the net price, after taking into account grants and other forms of aid, is rising more quickly than prices of other goods and than family incomes. In recent years, consumer prices have risen less than 3 percent a year, while net tuition at public colleges has risen by 8.8 percent and at private ones, 6.7 percent.

The changes in tuition at public institutions closely track changes in financing they receive from state governments and other public sources, the report found. When state and local support for public colleges declined over the last seven years, tuition and fees rose more quickly, and as state support has grown of late, the pace of increases fell, it said.

“We hope that state governments – which really set tuition prices at most public colleges and universities – will do their part to reinvest in higher education,” David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, said in a statement released by the College Board.

Private loans, those not guaranteed by the federal government, continued to be the fastest-growing form of borrowing, totaling more than $17 billion in the 2006-7 academic year. In the same period, students and their families borrowed $59.6 billion in federally guaranteed loans.

Sallie Mae: the privatization of student loan profits

Posted by Student on 2009/02/15 @ 0630 Comments (0) (show tags and categories)

A 2006 report by Leslie Stahl of 60 minutes investigates Sallie Mae, the program set up by Congress in 1972 that was later privatized, becoming an extremely profitable, publicly traded company. Sallie Mae is the anthropomorphic name for SLM Corporation, who are in the business of providing private and federally subsidized loans to student borrowers. In 1997, SLM began the process of ending its federal charter, which was concluded in 2004. During this process, SLM acquired a host of other businesses, including collections agencies, while maintaining strong ties to the federal government and strengthening ties to higher education. As of 2009, SLM manages more student loans than any other company.

For its lending and collection businesses, SLM Corporation enjoys unprecedented legal advantages that are not shared by any other class of financing, including many unique techniques for retrieving repayment from students who have defaulted. As a result, the repayment rate for student loans is currently 95%, which is significantly higher than in the past, and is higher than other industries. Stahl interviews several experts to figure out how SLM Corporation came to be, and uncovers a fascinating story of amazing profits and questionable expenses.

RTFA: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/05/60minute…

“It may be called ‘private’ by the people in the system. But it’s not private at all,” says Michael Dannenberg, who analyzes student loan policy at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan think tank.

“What do you call it?” Stahl asks.

“Frankly, it’s a socialist-like system,” he says. “It’s not as if this private entity is assuming any risks. No, no, no. The law makes sure that this so-called private entity has virtually no risk.”

On top of that, Sallie Mae also owns some of the biggest collection agencies in the country. Once a student borrower goes into default, the government pays Sallie Mae all the principle and compounded interest that have accrued.

The loan then passes into the collection phase. If Sallie Mae is the collector, it gets to keep up to 25 percent of whatever is recovered. In 2005, nearly a fifth of its revenue came from its collection business.

“Sallie Mae makes money if you pay back on time. And Sallie Mae makes money if you don’t pay back on time,” says Elizabeth Warren, a professor of bankruptcy law at Harvard Law School.

Warren says it’s a mistake to allow Sallie Mae to be both a lender and a collector.

“It shouldn’t be the case that Sallie Mae gets to play every hand at the poker table while the government is the one that keeps anteing up the money,” Warren tells Stahl. “But let’s be clear. That by itself isn’t enough. We have to decide collectively as a country: do we want to encourage the young people who are trying to get college diplomas? And if the answer to that is yes, the way to encourage them is not to double and triple the amount that they owe when they get into financial troubles.”

By law, private lenders must offer payment options, but that usually means the loans just balloon. So even though 95 percent do pay up over time, many are burdened with heavy debt. In a statement, Sallie Mae told 60 Minutes it makes far more money from those who pay on time, than from those who default

Default: the Student Loan Documentary

Posted by Student on 2009/02/14 @ 0630 Comments (0) (show tags and categories)

After watching the trailer for Default: the Student Loan Documentary, I eagerly anticipate the general release of this film, which focuses on the personal stories of students who have been affected by educational debt. Although there are strong political and financial overtones to the student loan bubble at large, it is important not to lose track of the actual people who will be most strongly impacted.

It is very common to read criticisms of students who have taken on more debt than they can handle, and if this film is able to speak to those criticisms, it will be a significant accomplishment. This challenge involves convincing a wide audience including people who dutifully paid all of their student loan debt, those who required no debt to begin with, those who compromised in order to avoid debt, and those who didn’t go to school at all. With an audience like that, Default might be a very difficult sell.

The following trailer is about 5 minutes long.

Excerpt from: http://www.defaultmovie.com/?page_id=2

Default: The Student Loan Documentary is a feature-length documentary chronicling the stories of borrowers from different backgrounds affected by the private student lending industry and their struggles to change the system.

In 2005 private student loans were exempted of ALL consumer protections. No matter when their loans were taken, many borrowers now find themselves in a paralyzing predicament of repaying two, three or multiple times the original amount borrowed, with no bankruptcy protection, no cap on fees and penalties and no recourse to the law. The consequences are dire, with stories of borrowers in financial and emotional ruin.

Beyond these personal accounts, DEFAULT will explain the differences between federal and private student loans, a subject often overlooked by colleges and high school counselors. It will also give detail on the rise of the private lending industry and of college debt.

While the media has focused on the disaster that sub-prime mortgages have turned out to be, only superficial attention has been given to financial giants which have been profiting by approving loans to low-income students with variable interest rates up to 25%.

As The National Consumer Law Center concluded in their March 2008 report titled “Paying The Price: The High Cost of Private Student Loans and the Dangers for Student Borrowers”, there are ominous signs that “the student loan market is headed for the same fate as the subprime mortgage industry .”

Default is directed by Aurora Meneghello and produced by Serge Bakalian. Keep an eye on the official website, which is www.defaultmovie.com. Student Loan Bubble will keep you posted as this story develops.

Older Posts »