

This Woman Has $97K in Student Loans. Who's to Blame? - bonyen
http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/109698/placing-the-blame-as-students-are-buried-in-debt;_ylt=AtsDtO5eOXUYXuc9Nk_hAh67YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhaXY3aDVpBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNwZXJzb25hbEZpbmFuY2UEc2xrA3RoaXN3b21hbmhhcw--?mod=edu-collegeprep

======
patio11
Seen from another angle, she spent $100,000 of other people's money and is
asking to never repay a penny of it.

This is a topic I've been thinking about a lot the last two weeks, since
client work has me doing some calculating from federal data on what the
current value of a degree in $FOO is likely to be. (I'm sure you will not be
surprised that neither religious studies nor women's studies appears near the
top of the list.)

I'll blog on that subject if folks are interested in it.

Some of the solutions, like cutting her off at $60k, are just insane. She'd be
halfway through her college degree then. If she'd quit then, she'd be
unemployed, have no sheepskin, and _still owe $60k_ with no expectation for
salary much higher than a generic high school graduate.

~~~
DilipJ
Consider this from her point of view. Here's a girl, that has never worked in
"the real world", and has no idea what the costs of living and consequences of
this debt will be. Technically she's not old enough to go to a bar, but she
should be allowed to accrue a six-figure debt? Consider if this was any other
industry. If you bought a product at a store that the retailer knew would
break the second you took it home, or say a home from an owner that knows that
the foundation is unstable, then there would be ways for the purchaser to
invalidate the purchase. That's because in any transaction, the purchaser has
the right to full disclosure of the product, so that they can make the
decision to purchase with the full knowledge of the consequences. However, in
the education field, there's a certain level of deceit that both the
universities and lenders are complicit in: they know that they are charging
excessively for a degree, based on the salary the student could expect to get
with that degree.

~~~
houseabsolute
> there's a certain level of deceit that both the universities and lenders are
> complicit in: they know that they are charging excessively for a degree,
> based on the salary the student could expect to get with that degree.

The charge for the degree isn't based on the income you can make from it, it's
based on the cost of producing it (ostensibly). This is true of most things
you buy. How much can you buy a steak for? How much can you sell it for after
it's cooked just right? But the price is determined mostly by the cost of
production and its intersection with the market's willingness to pay.

The real solution is to remove all special protection from college loans.
Bankruptcy should cancel them like any other loan, and they should not be
especially easy to get, especially not for poor people (who, despite all hopes
for an equal world, will probably be making less on average after school and
thus be in a worse position to pay back). Let the banks take their risks and
let the shareholders pay for the mistakes. And if people have to go to state
schools or (gasp) not get educated in retarded subjects like womens' studies,
so be it.

~~~
pmichaud
I'm trying really hard not to down vote you. Since you kept it relatively
civil, I won't, but let me say that I'm extremely disappointed in your
attitude:

1) Making it more difficult for poor people to get the loans that are now
pretty required for higher education is retrograde. The idea is to compensate
for the already significant disadvantages that the poor face in climbing out
of poverty, not to create yet another barrier. I'm guessing you're middle
class, never experienced anything but?

2) Picking a subject out of the sky, like womens' studies, and declaring it
"retarded" (classy in itself), is anti intellectual. What if evolution had to
abide arbitrary rules about which biological configurations were "retarded"
and which were acceptable? That's just not how it works.

~~~
houseabsolute
> Since you kept it relatively civil, I won't

I applaud your restraint!

> . . . higher education is retrograde . . . not to create yet another barrier

The individual being discussed in this essay is far from unique. The question
is whether many poor people aren't being saddled with even more debt for very
little payoff; debt that the education lobby has made it very difficult to
escape. Poor people studying in subjects for which there is likely to be a
good return on the investment ought to still be able to get loans. But you
won't see as many poor womens' studies majors. And you won't see as many poor
kids woefully underprepared for college going in the first place to throw five
or ten thousand dollars and two years of earning potential in the garbage when
they have to drop out.

I think the takeaway is that sometimes it is good to limit peoples' ability to
get credit if it's not going to be used for a productive purpose that's likely
to result in it being paid back. But since you can't discharge the debt
through bankruptcy, the banks have no incentive to help make this
determination. I don't mean that there should be government mandated limits,
by the way; I just want the government to stop giving people nooses to hang
themselves with.

The other factor is that if we stop propping up the market, colleges will
likely be forced to stop charging so much money, especially the private ones.
Or they will do something like what Stanford has done and adopt a graduated
pay scale to maintain that desirable trait of diversity.

> Picking a subject out of the sky

If you'll read the article you'll note that the person in question was a
women's studies major. It's hardly picked out of the sky. But even if it was,
what does it matter if I picked an example out of the constellation of
disciplines whose study do not deserve financial support? I could have picked
religious studies too but I had forgotten that part of her degree's name.

> What if evolution had to abide arbitrary rules

Might as well call gravity, by which evolution does have to abide,
"arbitrary." The rule that makes Women's Studies retarded is that it's not a
productive or useful course of education. To wit:

1\. Essentially no one except a government subsidized education facility and a
few rare counseling jobs will pay you more at the margin for having a degree
in Women's Studies because it is useless and nobody wants to pay for that.

2\. Women's Studies is not, in most cases, very important in determining how
effective a feminist you will become.

So if no one will pay for it and it offers little broader societal benefit
that we might want to subsidize, what is it for? The entire field, like
academic literary criticism, is masturbatory. That is why it is stupid and
study in it should not be subsidized. Especially for poor people who cannot
use it to climb out of their difficult situation.

~~~
foldr
>So if no one will pay for it and it offers little broader societal benefit
that we might want to subsidize, what is it for?

You could ask that question about all of the humanities, really, but
presumably you want poor people to have the option of studying English,
history, philosophy, etc.

------
anigbrowl
1000 words later...

 _She recently received a raise and now makes $22 an hour working for a
photographer. It's the highest salary she's earned since graduating with an
interdisciplinary degree in religious and women's studies. [...] "I don't want
to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for
four years and would happily give back," she said. "It feels wrong to me."_

Words fail me.

~~~
philwelch
If you're going to get a liberal arts degree, either have enough money to
afford it, or be so intensely interested in the liberal arts that you're
willing to pay back your damn loans. There's no human right to be educated in
something useless at no expense to yourself, and I say that as someone with a
BA in philosophy.

~~~
dmor
"There's no human right to be educated in something useless at no expense to
yourself, and I say that as someone with a BA in philosophy."

Rock on, we need more philosophers like you.

~~~
india
Au contraire, I think if everyone with a demonstrable ability to learn and the
demonstrated desire to do so was allowed to do so free of expense, society as
a whole would be way better off.

~~~
philwelch
"Free of expense" doesn't exist. You're talking about transferring the expense
onto people who _do_ create wealth. Maybe it makes sense for people to have an
inherent right to medical treatment or housing or something, but an inherent
right to study feminism and religion at the $100,000 expense of others?

I mean, we already have subsidies for people who are actually good at the
humanities--tenured professorships. Philosophy's probably worthwhile that
society can afford to pay for philosophers--and at this rate, we're hiring
more philosophers as a society than ever in history. But what's the gain for
society in training far more philosophers than we can afford to employ, or in
indulging the 80%+ of philosophy undergraduates who have little to no aptitude
for the subject?

I won't even get into the bigger question, which is whether religious studies
or women's studies are worthwhile for society to subsidize at all.

~~~
potatolicious
You have a good point - my question would be why the studies of feminism and
religion carry a $100K price tag. My engineering degree cost about half as
much (in Canada, mind you), but is understandably pricy due to the earning
potential.

Sure, there is a minimum cost to a degree that may or may not line up with its
earning potential... but $100K? How in the world do schools get away with
charging that much for a degree whose earning potential is so low?

This whole problem would be a lot less of an issue if degrees cost
proportionally (or at least roughly proportionally) to their market value.
People who want to study "useless" degrees can do so, and their costs would be
likewise much lower than people who want "useful" degrees for employment.
Perhaps we'd all be better off as a society this way.

~~~
philwelch
100K was her total student debt, which is not entirely from tuition and fees
but also from living expenses. Living expenses for 4 years in New York can
easily exceed 100K on their own. If you skimp and live on campus (which in NYC
is probably _cheaper_ than living in town--not true for the rural college I go
to) it's going to be less than otherwise, but then you add tuition on top of
that.

------
dmor
Reading down to the bottom...

"After taxes, she takes home about $2,300 a month. Rent runs $750, and the
full monthly payments on her student loans would be about $700 if they weren't
being deferred, which would not leave a lot left over."

How is $850 not a lot left over for discretionary spending when you are 26 and
just starting your career? You eat crap food, walk and take public trans and
you make it work. This smacks of the kind of entitlement that just makes me
sick.

~~~
spc476
And at $700/month it would take her nearly 12 years to pay the loan off. I'm
guessing math isn't one of her strong suits either.

~~~
younata
Well, she's 26. by the time she pays it off, she'll have been paying it for
close to a third of her life.

------
hop
My human sexuality teacher in college complained that engineering profs are
paid more money, she had no perception of market value.

I'm sure it would go over like the bay of pigs, but if the gov't and colleges
starting subsidizing majors based on their projected income, there surely
would not be as many post college financial problems and the US would benefit
from more engineers, scientists, etc. China is doing it before our very eyes,
the next 50 years will be interesting.

~~~
philwelch
"if the gov't and colleges starting subsidizing majors based on their
projected income, there surely would not be as many post college financial
problems"

The funny thing is, you might expect the market to already do this.
Engineering students can rationally expect to pay back tens of thousands of
dollars in student loans, because engineers earn several tens of thousands of
dollars per year. If student borrowers were rational and well-informed, no
subsidy would be required.

Well, rationality is a tough problem to solve. But before we break out the
subsidies, let's start well-informing people. You can start by putting lots of
information about income potential by degree program in the mandatory entrance
counseling that's required for student loans.

------
philk
I can think of a couple of changes that would make this sort of thing much
rarer:

a) Force universities to publish[1] data on average graduate salaries after
graduation. That way noone can delude themselves that a $100K major in
Cultural Studies is going to be anything other than a financial disaster.

b) Stop subsidising college loans. If not for the explicit and implicit[2]
subsidies then no lender would have been willing to provide so much money for
a Religious/Women's Studies degree.

[1] And by publish I mean, actually make clear to people who apply or consider
applying for these degrees.

[2] For example, the fact that it's unusually hard to discharge student loan
debts through bankruptcy.

~~~
potatolicious
a) Don't forget job market growth rates vs. graduates matriculated nation-
wide. That's as important as starting salary - there are a great many fields,
particularly in the humanities, where the pay isn't half bad, but you're
competing with a horde of fellow graduates for preciously few positions.

------
mcu
Here's my question: Why is an unsecured loan for education any different than
any other unsecured loan?

Remember, these aren't backed by the federal government. These are variable
rate loans, often with double digit interest rates, 10 year re-payment plans,
and virtually no consumer protections (even bankruptcy.)

I'm lucky that I can make my $1,400 monthly payments. When I left school, I
thought that I would be able to pay my loans off in 20-30 years. A few weeks
after leaving school I was floored when I found out that I had to repay my
loan in just 10 years. No negotiation, no other options. Pay what they ask or
they ruin your credit.

Personally, I'm on the fence about including student loans in a bankruptcy.
It's not an option for me, but should someone have to live their entire life
in service to a bank because congress changed a law in 2005?

Should a bank really be making $100,000 unsecured loans to 18-22 yo-s just
because someone in their (future) field has the potential to repay it?

OTOH: What are thinking going to schools that cost $40,000+ a year when we
have no means.

At least this taught me the value of unflinching frugality.

Proposal to include private student loans in a bankruptcy:
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5043>:

Exceptions to Discharge:
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sec_11_0...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode11/usc_sec_11_00000523
----000-.html)

~~~
huherto
"Should a bank really be making $100,000 unsecured loans to 18-22 yo-s just
because someone in their (future) field has the potential to repay it?"

It is should be like insured deposit in a bank. The government guarantees up
to $100k or so, but if you have more you run the risk your self. In this case
if the banks lends more than let's say 40K, then they are on their own if
borrower declares bankruptcy. (I may not be using the proper terminology.
English is my second language)

------
heresy
All I can say is, I'm glad that student loans are interest free in New
Zealand.

I can't understand the mentality that allows student loans to be charged at
double-digit interest rates. At least allow interest to be deferred until you
start working?

My younger brother is graduating with $70,000 of debt from an architectural
degree, lucky for him it's a static debt and he only pays interest if he
decides to go work offshore.

Also, I don't understand the disdain of some commenters for degrees that
aren't 100% "applied".

You're looking through a CS/Engineering lens, the world would be a poorer
place culturally if everyone did degrees for purely practical reasons.

There is value to having a well-rounded education, though if you're going to
complain about employment prospects afterwards, perhaps a double-major or
prior research was warranted.

------
liedra
Yet another reason I'm glad I went through the Australian system... government
funded loans and subsidised education (I paid about 2.5k AUD per year for my
degree, which is about US$2200, at one of the top universities in Australia),
where the loans gather no interest aside from inflation and you don't have to
start paying them back until you earn over a certain amount (and then the
payments are automatically taken from your pay, much like tax). Great system,
imo.

It's changed a bit since I went to uni, but the general idea is still there:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Aust...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia)

I remember being horrified when I saw my friend's HECS debt was around $8000
AUD... yet compared with this, it's peanuts!

~~~
robryan
It's about $7000 a year for HECS subsidised uni now, well for me anyway, just
looking at that wikipedia entry you need to earn at least $42000 a year and at
that rate you would be paying back $1600.

~~~
liedra
I assume it's $1600/year that you'd be paying back :) That's still not bad (I
finished uni in 2003 and the Howard government was busy killing VSU and
pushing the fees up at the time). Also, I believe it's tiered depending on
what sort of degree you are studying too? So if you do arts or nursing or
something that's either desperately wanted or not very "useful", it's a lot
cheaper than if you do medicine or vet science.

------
robryan
It was her decision to take the loans and go to that particular college. Now
it was probably the wrong one but she decided on it and would have been able
to see where the debt was taking her if she looked into it properly, the terms
of these loans haven't changed.

It goes back to the problem of people perceiving the value for money all
wrong, would you pay 5 to 10 times more for a similar functioning car just
based on branding?

Not to pick on certain degrees I know little about but perhaps someone here
does, with an arts degree majoring in religious and women's studies is it even
a good chance to begin with that you are going to land yourself a job that can
easily pay back a loan of this size?

~~~
liedra
It's a bit close to home since I did a PhD in a "useless" area (philosophy)
but my area of philosophy happens to be very popular at the moment in industry
as well as university so it's more likely that I'd get a job (I do technology
ethics). However, I have a friend who did a PhD in gender studies and is
having a bit of trouble finding a permanent position (she tutors at university
level). Mind you, unlike me, she wasn't willing to travel to where the jobs
might be - you definitely have to keep this in mind when you decide whether to
pursue your degree! For me it was a no-brainer, there's only one really big
centre in AU that does what I do, and in academia it's usually good to get a
postdoc from a different university, so I moved to Europe.

I think in academia you have to be willing to travel. I'm starting to realise
what a pain in the arse that is though! :) It's nice to feel "settled" in a
place, and I suspect I won't get that feeling for a while yet (until I'm in a
long-term position anyway).

I think that the big problem is that kids who go into university do what they
enjoy doing (which isn't wrong, they should absolutely be encouraged to do
what they enjoy doing!) but when they realise they can't be at university for
the rest of their lives, unless they're willing to fight for academic
positions, find themselves up shit creek, so to speak. I honestly don't think
they realise that they're going to have trouble getting a job until they're
well into the degree, and by then it's far too late.

I personally think it sucks that people should be discouraged from doing the
"less useful" degrees just because there are a buttload of fees that get
dumped on them that they need to repay later and they may not get a job that
will cover that. Noone is EVER going to make a billion dollars working in
gender studies or religious studies, but it's important to have those who do
it (for the love!) for research and teaching purposes. But then you have a
problem -- how are those people, who are highly educated but not ever going to
make $$$, and yet are going to teach the next generation of students, going to
pay back the debts they amass? Yeah, I don't like the American system very
much :)

~~~
robryan
It's true that there needs to be people in these areas and I don't think
people should be discouraged from obtaining these degrees if they are really
passionate about them. It's just they need to sit down before they start and
assess if they are realistically going to be able to pay for what they are
signing up for in the long run.

The system may well suck but it's no good signing up for it all then crying
fowl about the system at the end of the process.

~~~
liedra
Yeah, I agree that this woman made some pretty stupid decisions, I mean I
wouldn't exactly get a home loan to buy a house unless I knew I would be able
to pay it off! The difference though is that you probably wouldn't enter into
a home loan situation unless you already had a job -- going to university is
supposed to be the groundwork to get you a job. There's a much higher
uncertainty there, so much bigger risk. But I mean I always think it's a good
idea to have a backup plan -- I did a major in computer science too, and
worked in industry as a programmer, and though I'm pretty poor (out of
practice) at it and don't particularly enjoy it, I can always do it if I "get
stuck". :)

------
herdrick
It was a terrible idea to have a class of debts that can't be discharged with
bankruptcy. That it's mostly incurred by young who lack perspective makes it
even worse.

Someday people will look back on this the way we view debtor's prison.

~~~
DilipJ
Yes, it's a travesty that some private equity/LBO guy can have their debts
removed, but not this poor girl. The law needs to be changed, especially when
you consider how young she and others like her are when they make this
decision. She's not considered old enough to drink, but it's okay to make her
sign a document that says she is liable for a six-figure debt, for an asset
that the lenders know is severely overvalued?

~~~
herdrick
Actually, it's very important that the vilified robber baron of the week can
declare bankruptcy too. High income people need to be able to walk away from a
bad deal, too, as much for societies good as their own.

I'm sure you're right to put a lot of blame on the lenders though. If the
loans weren't federally guaranteed I'm pretty sure they'd be looking at data
more granularly than, 'four year degree' or 'two year degree' (though I have
to admit that commercial bankers aren't leading in data analysis).

------
chris_j
The title asks "Who's to Blame?" That's regrettable wording. We could
apportion blame in a number of ways but that wouldn't really help prevent a
situation like this arising again.

There are three main actors in this case:

\- The university that charged huge tuition fees for a course in Religious and
Women's Studies. \- The financial companies that loaned the huge sums of money
needed to pay for those fees. \- The poor girl who took out the loans to pay
the tuition.

One could criticise the university either for charging such expensive tuition
fees or for failing to provide advice that the girl needed. However, you could
also argue that the university was acting in its own (financial) self
interest. That self interest would have been damaged if the girl had gone to a
cheaper university.

One could criticise the companies that loaned the girl the money, money that
they must have known she would spend a lifetime repaying. However, again, they
acted in their own financial self interest, knowing that they'd probably get
their money one way or another.

One could also criticise the girl but the article makes it clear that she
thought that she was acting in her own self interest by getting a degree that
she thought would be of great help to her career.

Many commenters here have suggested that either the girl could have benefited
from better advice when choosing a degree course (which would have helped her
to better act in accordance with her self interest) or that student loans
should be dischargeable under bankruptcy (which would be an incentive not to
loan to students who would find it impossible to pay the loan off).

How about a third option, give the university an incentive that is better
aligned with the interests of the student after graduation: instead of
charging large tuition fees up front, a university could instead say "in
exchange for getting a degree from us, you owe us a certain percentage of all
of your future income." A lot of people are prepared to voluntarily give a
tenth of their income to the church so why not to your alma mater? I guess it
would be the equivalent of selling "shares" in yourself to the university
rather than taking out a loan.

I'm sure there are a million reasons why this wouldn't be workable but it
would be rather wonderful if the interests of the university and the student
could be aligned in this way.

~~~
huherto
"How about a third option,..."

Here in Mexico the Tec of Monterrey (which is one of the best private
Universities) does that. They give you a loan/scholarship based on a
combination of good grades and socio-economic status. The students get 90%,
80%, 60%. If they get 80%, that means they have to pay 20% when they are in
school, 40% is a scholarship and 40% is a loan.

One of the consequences of this is that most loans/scholarships are given to
the engineering students. The fact that the school has a stake on the future
success of the student makes them more careful on who to give the
loan/scholarship to. I always assumed this was the way done in the U.S. but
after reading the article and the comments here, it seems like it is not.

------
mklg1266
Part of the issue is that the whole incentive structure in education is set up
such that there is no relationship between tuition and either the cost or
value of a degree; universities survive/succeed on brand/rank, not value
provided. This is a reason that throwing more money into the Pell grant
program, for example, will basically not help maintain college affordability,
because schools have strong incentive to increase tuition annually, ahead of
inflation. I'm trying to remember which article I read that described this
problem (it might have been in the NYT), but as far as I remember it,
basically: schools pick tuition by looking at what other schools charge and
figuring out roughly what they can get away with. Schools have a strong
disincentive to lower tuition, because their success depends almost entirely
on their brand, their brand depends on their rank, and part of the US News
ranking scheme looks at $$ (spent, nominally, but that's considered to be
related to the amount taken in) per student, so charging less lowers school
rank. They therefore charge exactly what A) everyone else is charging and B)
what they think they can convince people to pay them, and people are willing
to pay _a lot_ of money for the prestige associated with a particular brand.
The actual sticker price of a school therefore _explicitly does not consider_
the actual cost of running a school or the value that the degree will offer.

------
herdrick
I'm surprised at the comments here. Yes, spending $100k to get a silly degree
is a mistake for a middle class kid, but not a crime. It's a key principle,
for moral and practical reasons, that we allow people a way out of crushing
debt.

Liberal arts and humanities departments that deceive prospective students to
keep their headcount up so as to justify their existence are as much to blame
as the students who believe them.

~~~
younata
Well, to some extent, the major doesn't matter so much as the degree. I mean,
I wouldn't hire an english major to design a vehicle, but I might hire one to
market the vehicle.

------
wisty
How does it cost $40k a year for tuition? It seems that college fees range
from $5k to $40k plus. I can understand that better lecturers cost a bit more,
but that can't explain much. What are the cost structures like?

Or is the higher cost just being driven by greater availability of credit for
the students? If this is the case, unis will find a way to absorb the extra
cash, but not in a good way.

~~~
snewe
Easy credit explains a big part of the increases in tuition. Gov't subsidies
that underly the ease of racking up 100K in student loans could directly
impact the cost of college. If everyone applying to university can pay either
through a loan or out-of-pocket, then it makes sense for colleges to raise
prices. In turn, the employees of that company (the university) have higher
productivity in real dollars so they all get higher wages.

People often think that they need more student loans because college is
becoming more expensive. It is more likely that college is becoming more
expensive because the gov't makes loans for college too cheap.

------
younata
So, basically, these people decided "hey, college, dunno if it's right for me,
probably isn't, at least now, since I have no clue what I want to do with my
life. However, I shall totally spend as much as possible to get a degree."

There are reasons that the community college system is being built up in
several (many? I know CA at least is doing it) states.

~~~
dmor
I attended community college for precisely this reason, I had no clue what I
wanted to do right after high school and didn't want to spend a lot of (my
parents) money on an education I might not use. I ended up leaving school and
working instead, but I think it was a relatively inexpensive way to figure
that out and I'd certainly suggest it for others

------
thefool
The counter (counter) argument is that maybe college shouldn't cost so damn
much in the first place (and for a large part aid structures at top schools
(that can afford it) have been changing in line with this argument).

She probably got the short end of the stick because her mom owned a business
that had a lot of revenue which precluded her from aid. Yet this business also
had a lot of overhead, so their actual income wasn't actually that big.

This problem effects a lot of people that I know.

------
stretchwithme
VCs can evaluate the likelihood of a startup being successful. Banks can
certainly assess whether a particular person pursuing a particular education
will be able to pay back the loans they will need.

I say if your plan is a bad risk, no one should be coerced to fund it. You'll
have to come up with a better plan.

That will leave more money for education that will create more wealth.

------
AmberShah
I can see both sides of this - the truly ridiculous part of this story was
this:

"It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing
decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can
repel potential life partners."

You know what ... anyone who would walk away from you because of your student
debt is NOT a potential life partner.

------
melling
The problem with universities is that there are so few excellent ones that we
don't get any of them competing on price. Every year tutition increases more
than the rate of inflation. This can't continue forever.

People think they need to pay $50k/year for an NYU education because the
smaller, cheaper one located [insert your town] isn't nearly as good.

------
netcan
_..it's a shared failure of parenting and loan underwriting.

But perhaps the biggest share lies with colleges and universities because they
have the most knowledge of the financial aid process._

------
aresant
Lots of discussion of heavy regulation to come . . .

[http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-next-big-
industry-t...](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-next-big-industry-
that-hedge-funds-shorts-are-set-to-take-down-2010-6)

------
coned88
There are people who go to top schools, study an easy major and solely because
of who they know, come out of school making 150-200K a year, proofing fashion
magazines. NY is filled with girls like that, I know a few of them.

Though for the rest of us, with non anglo last names who didnt go to a top 25
school, its much harder.

This girl was just chasing that.

