Student Loan Debt

[Texsox]

I teach two sections of a class for seniors getting into college. Finances are a huge concern for most of them. I believe there will be a real slowdown in tuition and fee increases.  Some comparison shop on prices and all of a sudden UT San Antonio and living at home starts looking really good. 

[ron883]

 

 

[Two-Gun Pete]

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

I teach two sections of a class for seniors getting into college. Finances are a huge concern for most of them. I believe there will be a real slowdown in tuition and fee increases.  Some comparison shop on prices and all of a sudden UT San Antonio and living at home starts looking really good. 

I really wish this was the case. But, in my practice, that hasn't always been what folks shop for. In the video ron posted, schools are competing for future students on terms of useless luxury items that have zero educational benefit, and zero benefit to a student's future earnings. Like lazy rivers, rock climbing walls, hell, even the quality of the football or basketball program. [In all my years of hiring folks, I've never once given a rip about the school one went to, and how they placed in the AP Top 20.]

 

OTOH, as I've posted, schools have completely unfettered access to virtually free money, with complete and total impunity. Loans are NOT underwritten, and are NOT subject to proof of future ability to repay. Calling student loans a "social good," but exposing folks to a lifetime of debt servitude is The Law of Unintended Consequences in action.

The result of unimpeded flow of free money into universities, while a complete lack of underwriting loans is a several-decades-long track of college costs increasing without any end in sight, while borrowers now have more student debt than we as a society have in credit card debt.

[ron883]

19 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

I really wish this was the case. But, in my practice, that hasn't always been what folks shop for. In the video ron posted, schools are competing for future students on terms of useless luxury items that have zero educational benefit, and zero benefit to a student's future earnings. Like lazy rivers, rock climbing walls, hell, even the quality of the football or basketball program. [In all my years of hiring folks, I've never once given a rip about the school one went to, and how they placed in the AP Top 20.]

 

OTOH, as I've posted, schools have completely unfettered access to virtually free money, with complete and total impunity. Loans are NOT underwritten, and are NOT subject to proof of future ability to repay. Calling student loans a "social good," but exposing folks to a lifetime of debt servitude is The Law of Unintended Consequences in action.

The result of unimpeded flow of free money into universities, while a complete lack of underwriting loans is a several-decades-long track of college costs increasing without any end in sight, while borrowers now have more student debt than we as a society have in credit card debt.

This is the biggest thing I noticed 10+ years ago when I visited colleges. I remember loving IU Bloomington simply because the campus was absolutely gorgeous. Hell, the school I went to had a rock climbing wall and a state of the art new fitness center. These are the things that appealed to my younger self, not the quality of the education. They're building so many unnecessary things on these campuses. You're paying more for the college experience than you are for the education. Forgiving debt or making college free without addressing the bloated costs would be a big mistake. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by ron883

[Two-Gun Pete]

43 minutes ago, ron883 said:

This is the biggest thing I noticed 10+ years ago when I visited colleges. I remember loving IU Bloomington simply because the campus was absolutely gorgeous. Hell, the school I went to had a rock climbing wall and a state of the art new fitness center. These are the things that appealed to my younger self, not the quality of the education. They're building so many unnecessary things on these campuses. You're paying more for the college experience than you are for the education. Forgiving debt or making college free without addressing the bloated costs would be a big mistake. 

And universities know this. Think about the process of getting into/accepting, and then enrolling into college:

A kid takes the ACT/SAT, THEN goes on their campus visits, THEN applies/gets accepted. By this point, a child's underdeveloped sense of consequences may have already been overwhelmed by the beauty of the campus, how hot the coeds are on campus, or how cool the football uniforms are. THEN, the family gets their financial aid letter from the school; the child may have already made up their minds to attend the school with the best lazy river, whether or not its worth it to them.

Lastly, the child picks the school to attend.

Marketers know that if you go into a store and pickup an item, you're ALREADY halfway on your way to buying it, whether or not you can afford it. With colleges/universities, "the sale was closed" [of getting a student hooked] well before the cost of attending was worked out.

 

For me, I'd turn the enrollment process on it's ear. I think it would be better to:

1. Have the kid take the ACT/SATs,

2. Apply for financial aid/MAX  loan amount available, based on a kid's forecasted future earnings [akin to getting pre-qualified for a mortgage],

3. Apply for acceptance to a school, who then

4. Send back how much out of pocket/how much one would have to borrow to attend, and THEN

5. A family can go on their campus visits. [akin to touring a house, once you've got the mortgage prequalification done]

6. Lastly, a student could accept/reject an offer to attend a school. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[ron883]

3 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

And universities know this. Think about the process of getting into/accepting, and then enrolling into college:

A kid takes the ACT/SAT, THEN goes on their campus visits, THEN applies/gets accepted. By this point, a child's underdeveloped sense of consequences may have already been overwhelmed by the beauty of the campus, how hot the coeds are on campus, or how cool the football uniforms are.

Marketers know that if you go into a store and pickup an item, you're ALREADY halfway on your way to buying it, whether or not you can afford it.

 

For me, I'd turn the enrollment process on it's ear. I think it would be better to:

1. Have the kid take the ACT/SATs,

2. Apply for financial aid/MAX  loan amount available, based on a kid's forecasted future earnings [akin to getting pre-qualified for a mortgage],

3. Apply for acceptance to a school, who then

4. Send back how much out of pocket/how much one would have to borrow to attend, and THEN

5. A family can go on their campus visits. [akin to touring a house, once you've got the mortgage prequalification done]

6. Lastly, a student could accept/reject an offer to attend a school. 

It's a shame that it costs so much. College is billed as "the best 4 years of your life", and I would definitely agree. Teenagers (most of them) want to go to college, party it up and have the best 4 years of their life. I wouldn't trade those years of my life for anything. I can't imagine the FOMO I would have if I wasn't able to attend a 4 year university. It's definitely a first world problem. 

[raBBit]

When are we supposed to get that 10k of student loans relief?

[ptatc]

59 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

And universities know this. Think about the process of getting into/accepting, and then enrolling into college:

A kid takes the ACT/SAT, THEN goes on their campus visits, THEN applies/gets accepted. By this point, a child's underdeveloped sense of consequences may have already been overwhelmed by the beauty of the campus, how hot the coeds are on campus, or how cool the football uniforms are. THEN, the family gets their financial aid letter from the school; the child may have already made up their minds to attend the school with the best lazy river, whether or not its worth it to them.

Lastly, the child picks the school to attend.

Marketers know that if you go into a store and pickup an item, you're ALREADY halfway on your way to buying it, whether or not you can afford it. With colleges/universities, "the sale was closed" [of getting a student hooked] well before the cost of attending was worked out.

 

For me, I'd turn the enrollment process on it's ear. I think it would be better to:

1. Have the kid take the ACT/SATs,

2. Apply for financial aid/MAX  loan amount available, based on a kid's forecasted future earnings [akin to getting pre-qualified for a mortgage],

3. Apply for acceptance to a school, who then

4. Send back how much out of pocket/how much one would have to borrow to attend, and THEN

5. A family can go on their campus visits. [akin to touring a house, once you've got the mortgage prequalification done]

6. Lastly, a student could accept/reject an offer to attend a school. 

I agree the price of a college education is getting out of hand and something should be done about it. some of my students have 100,000 debt before they get to me.

However, the bolded is absolutely the wrong way to look at it. If you look at it this way you should go to a trade school to learn a specific trade and nothing else.

The college experience is for more than being educated for a specific task. It is about improving the way a mind thinks and operates. It is about having a society that will think and analyze options during any choice (presidential elections, financial debt, what is best for my child) not just trained to do a task.

It's also about slowly learning to adult, not being thrown into adulting. Kind of like a half way house for the immature.

I know work in academia and I'm biased but going to a university is about so much more than training for a job.

[Two-Gun Pete]

23 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I agree the price of a college education is getting out of hand and something should be done about it. some of my students have 100,000 debt before they get to me.

However, the bolded is absolutely the wrong way to look at it. If you look at it this way you should go to a trade school to learn a specific trade and nothing else.

The college experience is for more than being educated for a specific task. It is about improving the way a mind thinks and operates. It is about having a society that will think and analyze options during any choice (presidential elections, financial debt, what is best for my child) not just trained to do a task.

It's also about slowly learning to adult, not being thrown into adulting. Kind of like a half way house for the immature.

I know work in academia and I'm biased but going to a university is about so much more than training for a job.

First, I gotta ask: Are you a Boomer, Gen X, or milennial?

 

Second, if we're going to ask people to borrow money, we ALSO have to ask them if/how they will be able to pay it back. Otherwise, you have a moronic mountain of debt that prevents a very real part of America to fail to go forward financially.

 

Third, I agree that learning how to learn and learning how to think are valuable things. But "the college experience" means totally different things if you're a boomer who could "just do work-study" to pay for school, vs. today's kids that are facing $100k+ in debt before they cash a single paycheck. 

 

Lastly, I too may be biased, based on having worked in loan origination and in financial planning. I also know how to properly structure debt so that it doesn't over-encumber a borrower, and so that the lender doesn't get screwed, either. As it stands, universities [the folks who benefit from cost inflation and from forcing others to borrow] suffer ZERO CONSEQUENCES for over-encumbering a student, while many students will never accomplish the ROI on a degree to make it worth it.

The balance between free cash to schools on the backs of naive borrowers has to change. And that's why I favor student loans to be like other types of loans: Underwritten, and tied to someone's ability to repay.

Otherwise, your industry is just taking advantage of the desperate and the naive, whether its a 17 year old kid, or his/her 45 year old parent who didn't attend college, or their foreign born parent who don't have the familiarity to comprehend the cost/benefit analysis to paying for school. [And I say this despite my support for learning, and my belief that education is crucial.]

Edited June 8, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Jerksticks]

Just stop guaranteeing the loans.  Fixes almost everything. 
 

Prices would come crashing down as schools are forced to compete. 

[raBBit]

17 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Just stop guaranteeing the loans.  Fixes almost everything. 
 

Prices would come crashing down as schools are forced to compete. 

I dont think people will like this but it is the truth

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

First, I gotta ask: Are you a Boomer, Gen X, or milennial?

 

Second, if we're going to ask people to borrow money, we ALSO have to ask them if/how they will be able to pay it back. Otherwise, you have a moronic mountain of debt that prevents a very real part of America to fail to go forward financially.

 

Third, I agree that learning how to learn and learning how to think are valuable things. But "the college experience" means totally different things if you're a boomer who could "just do work-study" to pay for school, vs. today's kids that are facing $100k+ in debt before they cash a single paycheck. 

 

Lastly, I too may be biased, based on having worked in loan origination and in financial planning. I also know how to properly structure debt so that it doesn't over-encumber a borrower, and so that the lender doesn't get screwed, either. As it stands, universities [the folks who benefit from cost inflation and from forcing others to borrow] suffer ZERO CONSEQUENCES for over-encumbering a student, while many students will never accomplish the ROI on a degree to make it worth it.

The balance between free cash to schools on the backs of naive borrowers has to change. And that's why I favor student loans to be like other types of loans: Underwritten, and tied to someone's ability to repay.

Otherwise, your industry is just taking advantage of the desperate and the naive, whether its a 17 year old kid, or his/her 45 year old parent who didn't attend college, or their foreign born parent who don't have the familiarity to comprehend the cost/benefit analysis to paying for school. [And I say this despite my support for learning, and my belief that education is crucial.]

I'm on the border of boomers and gen x. However my college experience isn't what I use for this case. It's the 25 years of academia and seeing what the students go through.

Not everyone needs to go to a 4 year university. Trade schools are fine if all you are looking for is a career. This is where the divide should be and where the choice is. Too many people go to college just to go to college. Now the majority of students change their major while there anyway so their needs to be a somewhat of a plan for a career but that isn't the only choice.

I think the answer truly needs to be financial counseling for affordable schooling. Whether it's the government or the school. A layout of the debt needs to be discussed ahead of time. This will the student and guardians an idea of what they are truly in for. If they then choose the school it's up to them.

Edited June 8, 2021 by ptatc

[ptatc]

27 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Just stop guaranteeing the loans.  Fixes almost everything. 
 

Prices would come crashing down as schools are forced to compete. 

True.

[Jerksticks]

29 minutes ago, raBBit said:

I dont think people will like this but it is the truth

Oh they’ll hate it for sure.  Especially everybody that works for universities and sucks on that fat, no-limit teat. 

 

But damn, we’d sure start churning out smarter people.
 

 

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

1. I'm on the border of boomers and gen x. 

2. Not everyone needs to go to a 4 year university. Trade schools are fine if all you are looking for is a career. This is where the divide should be and where the choice is. Too many people go to college just to go to college. 

3. I think the answer truly needs to be financial counseling for affordable schooling. Whether it's the government or the school. A layout of the debt needs to be discussed ahead of time. This will the student and guardians an idea of what they are truly in for. If they then choose the school it's up to them.

1. Good. Nothing more eyes-rolling-worthy than someone whose experience is out of touch with today's realities.

2. Agreed that not everyone needs college. But, for those that do go to college, there has to be a better answer than borrowing to pay for 100 level humanities courses. I mean, one can learn how to think at CLC, CDC, Joliet JC, Moraine Valley, or Wright college, can't they?

3. They've tried counseling, and it doesn't work. If folks are going to borrow, it has to be tied to an ability to repay, or folks can get stuck in debt hell. Also, borrowing has to be capped somehow, or else there will be those that will over-extend themselves.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 hour ago, Jerksticks said:

Just stop guaranteeing the loans.  Fixes almost everything. 
 

Prices would come crashing down as schools are forced to compete. 

Well, almost everything.

If borrowers can borrow unlimited amounts of money, a lot will. If lenders can charge unlimited amounts of interest, then a lot will.

At the same time, schools that are addicted to unlimited money will simply direct the naive and foolish to continue borrowing as before, with lenders that will abuse the naive and foolish, and nothing will change.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[ptatc]

7 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

1. Good. Nothing more eyes-rolling-worthy than someone whose experience is out of touch with today's realities.

2. Agreed that not everyone needs college. But, for those that do go to college, there has to be a better answer than borrowing to pay for 100 level humanities courses. I mean, one can learn how to think at CLC, CDC, Joliet JC, Moraine Valley, or Wright college, can't they?

3. They've tried counseling, and it doesn't work. If folks are going to borrow, it has to be tied to an ability to repay, or folks can get stuck in debt hell.

The only issue with starting at a juvo is the relative lack of options compared to a larger school. Other than that its a great way to start and decrease the cost.

If they went to counseling and still decided to go into 100,000 dollars in debt, there isn't much you can do. They took the loan. Tying the amount you pay relative to your income is good. But not the cost of the school dependent on the relative income.

[raBBit]

6 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Well, almost everything.

 If borrowers can borrow unlimited amounts of money, a lot will. If lenders can charge unlimited amounts of interest, then a lot will.

 At the same time, schools that are addicted to unlimited money will simply direct the naive and foolish to continue borrowing as before, with lenders that will abuse the naive and foolish, and nothing will change.

If the loans weren't guaranteed than the schools train of unlimited money would stop. They can direct the "naïve and foolish" (otherwise known as the youth in this country) to continue borrowing as before all they want, but the access to debt will not be there.

The problem is people will say "you can't restrict education to certain segments of the population." Apparently the way to combat that is government guaranteed loans where everybody but academia gets screwed over and we have hundreds of thousands of young Americans with useless degrees and exorbitant debt.

The government needs to stop the federal guarantees and the state governments (looking at you Illinois) need to do better in offering their in-state applicants affordable school. It makes no sense that a kid in Florida has multiple, in-state, affordable options for school where in Illinois kids are paying 3x+ what their peers in Florida are paying for in-state tuition. 

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

The only issue with starting at a juvo is the relative lack of options compared to a larger school. Other than that its a great way to start and decrease the cost.

If they went to counseling and still decided to go into 100,000 dollars in debt, there isn't much you can do. They took the loan. Tying the amount you pay relative to your income is good. But not the cost of the school dependent on the relative income.

Ok, I think I understand you a bit better.

 

My view is certainly colored by my experience as a loan originator. To qualify for a FHA mortgage, your back-end debt to income ratio generally needs to be 43% or less. (I.e. sum all your monthly minimum debt payments, plus a proposed monthly mortgage payment, divided by your pre-deduction income = back end ratio.) Back end ratio

 

I would propose a similar setup to make a max amount borrowable relative to a student's probable income. For example, Accountants entry level pay is ~$50k/yr to start in Chicago, according to Glassboro.com, or ~$4,200/month.

I would tie the max amount a student could borrow to no more than a % of that probable income, based on a 10 year amortization table. IOW, make it probable that a borrower could repay the loan, without getting buried.

Correlating that to today's realities, for example, a total of $50k borrowed @ 3.5% interest is a 10 year payment of ~$522/month. SOURCE

 

Now, maybe a total of $50k borrowed could get a kid through the entirety of his program, AND the payments are affordable over a standardized amortization schedule. If so, great! Go ahead and enroll. But if you want to attend Loyola, then maybe not.

Or maybe, you go to juco for a few years, then transfer. But the beauty part of tying borrowing to future income is that the loans are much more likely to perform, and the individual borrower is less likely to be debt-fucked for life. 

 

Over time, overpriced schools would have to adjust their cost structure, or risk losing attendees to more affordable options. Or compete with similarly priced schools, based on their graduates being hired for more money. Or compete, based on something other than their lazy river.

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

If the loans weren't guaranteed than the schools train of unlimited money would stop. They can direct the "naïve and foolish" (otherwise known as the youth in this country) to continue borrowing as before all they want, but the access to debt will not be there.

The problem is people will say "you can't restrict education to certain segments of the population." Apparently the way to combat that is government guaranteed loans where everybody but academia gets screwed over and we have hundreds of thousands of young Americans with useless degrees and exorbitant debt.

The government needs to stop the federal guarantees and the state governments (looking at you Illinois) need to do better in offering their in-state applicants affordable school. It makes no sense that a kid in Florida has multiple, in-state, affordable options for school where in Illinois kids are paying 3x+ what their peers in Florida are paying for in-state tuition. 

I used to share your/jerksticks' optimism and your/jerksticks' view.

But, we also live in a society where payday loans that charge an approximate metric fuckton of interest are allowed to operate. We lived through The Great Recession, where part of the cause were the poor underwriting standards for mortgages at the time. So, lending is an industry where deregulation hasn't worked. Or, at least, it hasn't worked to keep borrowers from being overridden with debt.

 

I think a better way would be to tie the availability of loans at a given school to their graduates' ability to repay them. IOW, if an institution keeps pumping out ill-prepared graduates that can't pay their loans, then that school would then lose their ability to enroll students who pay them via debt.

If a school can't prepare their students to obtain gainful employment that enables them to make a living, then they'll close in favor of those that can. Or they'll have to engage in cost-cutting to make it possible for someone to attend without paying through the nose. This is the nature of competition. 

But, competition has to have rules, or else someone will get fooked by the lack of rules.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[ptatc]

37 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Ok, I think I understand you a bit better.

 

My view is certainly colored by my experience as a loan originator. To qualify for a FHA mortgage, your back-end debt to income ratio generally needs to be 43% or less. (I.e. sum all your monthly minimum debt payments, plus a proposed monthly mortgage payment, divided by your pre-deduction income = back end ratio.) Back end ratio

 

I would propose a similar setup to make a max amount borrowable relative to a student's probable income. For example, Accountants entry level pay is ~$50k/yr to start in Chicago, according to Glassboro.com, or ~$4,200/month.

I would tie the max amount a student could borrow to no more than a % of that probable income, based on a 10 year amortization table. IOW, make it probable that a borrower could repay the loan, without getting buried.

Correlating that to today's realities, for example, a total of $50k borrowed @ 3.5% interest is a 10 year payment of ~$522/month. SOURCE

 

Now, maybe a total of $50k borrowed could get a kid through the entirety of his program, AND the payments are affordable over a standardized amortization schedule. If so, great! Go ahead and enroll. But if you want to attend Loyola, then maybe not.

Or maybe, you go to juco for a few years, then transfer. But the beauty part of tying borrowing to future income is that the loans are much more likely to perform, and the individual borrower is less likely to be debt-fucked for life. 

 

Over time, overpriced schools would have to adjust their cost structure, or risk losing attendees to more affordable options. Or compete with similarly priced schools, based on their graduates being hired for more money. Or compete, based on something other than their lazy river.

 

The issue with this is you have no idea what their probable income will be. Majors change. Many are looking to grad school for something different. Apply for the loan based on what they think they can do would be fruitless for most until the last year or two.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

If the loans weren't guaranteed than the schools train of unlimited money would stop. They can direct the "naïve and foolish" (otherwise known as the youth in this country) to continue borrowing as before all they want, but the access to debt will not be there.

The problem is people will say "you can't restrict education to certain segments of the population." Apparently the way to combat that is government guaranteed loans where everybody but academia gets screwed over and we have hundreds of thousands of young Americans with useless degrees and exorbitant debt.

The government needs to stop the federal guarantees and the state governments (looking at you Illinois) need to do better in offering their in-state applicants affordable school. It makes no sense that a kid in Florida has multiple, in-state, affordable options for school where in Illinois kids are paying 3x+ what their peers in Florida are paying for in-state tuition. 

There is no such thing as a useless degree. It will come into use either in life in other ways or help them in their employment later. Part of the problem is the expectations of the graduate. My daughter has many friends who have been offered Jon's but don't feel that they should settle for anything less than 60,000 per year in salary. However those jobs need 5 years of experience. They've been sold the idea that college means there is no starting at entry level.

Expectations are a little out of wack.

[Two-Gun Pete]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The issue with this is you have no idea what their probable income will be. Majors change. Many are looking to grad school for something different. Apply for the loan based on what they think they can do would be fruitless for most until the last year or two.

We have a pretty good idea of what people make. You have salary.com, monster.com, and glassdoor.com. But the source I prefer is The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which gives you an idea of wages by occupation, and by geography. For example, according to THIS LINK PTs make a median of $91k/year nationwide, and it breaks it down by geography as well.

In addition, we have widely-available stats on what a given degree can lead to in terms of income.

As to whether a student changes their major, no big deal! The max amount borrowable could then be adjusted to reflect the probable income, based on the new major.

 

Similarly, if a student wants to go to grad school, then their ability to borrow would then be recalculated, based on the additional degree/forecasted income, LESS any monies already borrowed. Doing so would ward off the "career student" who refuses to grow up, but rather chases degree after degree, without any real endgame or goal in mind.

[ptatc]

Just now, Two-Gun Pete said:

We have a pretty good idea of what people make. You have salary.com, monster.com, and glassdoor.com. But the source I prefer is The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which gives you an idea of wages by occupation, and by geography. For example, according to THIS LINK PTs make a median of $91k/year nationwide, and it breaks it down by geography as well.

In addition, we have widely-available stats on what a given degree can lead to in terms of income.

As to whether a student changes their major, no big deal! The max amount borrowable could then be adjusted to reflect the probable income, based on the new major.

 

Similarly, if a student wants to go to grad school, then their ability to borrow would then be recalculated, based on the additional degree/forecasted income, LESS any monies already borrowed. Doing so would ward off the "career student" who refuses to grow up, but rather chases degree after degree, without any real endgame or goal in mind.

That's an awful lot of work for very fluid situations. Maybe that's where these graduates can work!

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

We have a pretty good idea of what people make. You have salary.com, monster.com, and glassdoor.com. But the source I prefer is The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which gives you an idea of wages by occupation, and by geography. For example, according to THIS LINK PTs make a median of $91k/year nationwide, and it breaks it down by geography as well.

In addition, we have widely-available stats on what a given degree can lead to in terms of income.

As to whether a student changes their major, no big deal! The max amount borrowable could then be adjusted to reflect the probable income, based on the new major.

 

Similarly, if a student wants to go to grad school, then their ability to borrow would then be recalculated, based on the additional degree/forecasted income, LESS any monies already borrowed. Doing so would ward off the "career student" who refuses to grow up, but rather chases degree after degree, without any real endgame or goal in mind.

Not sure where those PT stats came from but they aren't realistic in the last year. No one is getting that now. We are getting ready for a massive down turn and our graduates are having trouble finding jobs.