opinion

Australia allows student loans to be repaid based on income earned onced employed. Payments are deferred until the person is working and payment amounts are adjusted based on income. If the borrower is making high wages, the monthly payment is higher and the loan period shorter. If the borrower has lower wages, the payment is lower and is spread over a longer period of time. Something to be considered.

The article doesn't mention that administrative bloat and overbuilding of "vanity buildings" has been accompanied by a decline in the number of full-time professors and a huge increase in the number of part-time instructors who teach maybe one or two classes per semester, have to travel among three or four colleges to make a living, and have no office, no prospects for advancement, and no benefits. If the colleges are saving money by hiring part-time instructors, why aren't the savings passed on to the students?

Wall Street Journal published a similar topic today (College Debt Hits Well-Off, 8/9/2012). College & University debt is absolutely crushing the US and Vicki is clearly not sugar coating the issue. She briefly noted a key stat though, "the percentage of students at public universities receiving their degrees within 6 years of enrolling as freshmen has remained just below 55 percent for a decade. The percentage graduating in four years has been stuck around 30 percent." 6 years to get a "4-yr degree", and only half of the students get that? The statistic I would like to see on the US is the percentage of people paying on student loans - yet do not have a degree to show for it. If that number is above 80%, what does this say for our University system? (Meaning, if students aren't cutting it academically, why were they accepted in the first place?) Lastly, I might through this question out, what is the point of a college degree in the first place? I can say for the corporate world in which I work, a degree is simply viewed as a qualifying piece of paper. (Yes, I want my doctors, lawyers, and other professionals properly trained and educated). But looking over open positions, why require a degree if it really isn't needed? Why keep watering it down?

"Legislators should demand that taxpayer-subsidized institutions provide accurate information, including details about their graduates' success in the job market." I would add that this process should be performed by an *independent auditor.*

Federally-backed student loans are the direct cause of skyrocketing tuitions. Only the economically illiterate find sense in making loans more available.

The tuition has become an abstract concept. The loan structure and the expense all create a situation where the students, professors and administration are not viewing the actual dollars paid in relation to the actual time of instruction. Being one of the few "pay as I go" students, I became keenly aware of how screwed up the bookstore was to not have my class materials in stock until four sessions had passed, or how the instructors felt they were doing us a favor when repeatedly letting us out of class early. When trying to budget for a summer international experience I was never able to get the correct answer on how much it would cost and what semester it would be charged until the bill actually arrived. None of these things are acceptable when you are paying at the point of sale, but seem to be just fine when it is going to be paid at some distant point.

Well if Australia bases student loan payback on wage earned after graduation. How about caring that out a bit further. Colleges and professors also get paid buy performance/wages earned of there graduates/students. BRILLIANT

While I agree that freezing interest rates and more and more federal aid has not really helped with college costs I still don't like the "solutions" offered. Since the aid has not lowered costs as much as it has allowed colleges to overspend, why not gradually eliminate the aid? Simply reduce the amount of aid given each year, forcing the colleges to compete and encouraging consumers to shop for their best deal. As it is now students don't need to shop wisely because they have taxpayer money in their pockets to spend. That seems a better solution than having Legislators demand and require more from schools in exchange for the money. The Federal Government does that now with the states with funding for highways and other things - basically holding out the carrot encouraging states to spend money their way.

Student debt is a major issue right now and the economy is not going to be turning around anytime soon when an entire generation or two is buried in student loan debt. There has got to be a way to make college more affordable. And there needs to be more regulations on private loans. Why are there no income-based repayment options on private loans? Why are rates not capped on private education loans?

Good article. Let's quit the rhetoric about reduced funding and low cost loans. The whole university system needs to be transformed. Streamline, flatten the organization, automate, innovate, redefine programs to produce employable students. Welcome to the competitive world that the private sector deals with day in and day out.