Home › Forums › Open Discussion › UW Tuition Farce
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 29, 2011 at 12:28 am #727472
TDeParticipantUmmm… You do know that the Federal Government took over the student loan program a couple of years ago don’t you? Banks no longer lend federal student loans. Students go directly to the federal government for their risk-free loans now, just like they did in the 70s. You can thank the late Senator Ted Kennedy for pushing that really hard and then President George W. Bush for signing it into law, so you can’t really kick around the evil banks for duping 18 year olds into the federal student loan program anymore.
June 29, 2011 at 12:34 am #727473
kootchmanMemberThis too will blow up in our faces… and you thought mortgage backed securities were a scam… at least in that mix “some” (like redblack, self admitted ARE and can pay their mortgages) These loans were issued to the poorest of the poorest credit risks.18 year olds with no jobs and no credit…and the default rate is at present 7% …. up from 6.7% last year… it gets worse…. since most fed backed student loans go to not for profit schools (UW and other state schools), as an example) .. that default rate is 11.6%… (private for profit schools generally are private loans, underwritten by well heeled parents or borrowed from endowments) (US Dept of Education) YOO HOO! WAKE UP…the current housing default rate is 10.1 per cent. Are you going to let the federal government loan EVEN MORE? They want to…Obama Admin wants to raise the number of loans and the amount per loan… who is that stupid? A ONE TRILLION dollar taxpayer liability… and liberals think more loans, easier to get loans are politically correct… at some point ..is their some number they can’t ignore… maybe 1 gazillion? The coookie jar is empty… we are borrowing 40% to pay for day to day government such as it is.
June 29, 2011 at 12:56 am #727474
TDeParticipantStudent loan default rates are calcuated yearly, based on the prior two years… so this year’s calculation actually is the rate for two years prior.
The categories are thus: Public schools, Private Schools and Proprietary Schools (For Profit Schools). The latest default rates are for 2008 and are: Public Schools (Like UW), 6%… Private Schools (Like Seattle Univ) 4%… and Proprietary Schools (For Profit Schools) 11.6%. http://chronicle.com/article/Loan-Default-Rate-at/126250/
June 29, 2011 at 1:01 am #727475
TDeParticipantIf you want to check the cohort student loan default rates for any individual college, go to:
http://www.nslds.ed.gov/nslds_SA/defaultmanagement/search_cohort.cfm
It’s public information and includes rates for 06, 07, and 08. The 2008 rate for UW was 1.2%, which is pretty small. The 2009 rates will be released to schools in September and to the public about 2-3 months after that.
June 29, 2011 at 1:11 am #727476
TDeParticipantHey… does the complete government takeover of student loans during the Bush years make former President George W. Bush a socialist?
June 29, 2011 at 1:14 am #727477
JoBParticipantAHexpat
do you think Kootchman is a tired old poet too?
that’s my excuse for thinking and speaking in fragments.
June 29, 2011 at 1:43 am #727478
kootchmanMemberIt does. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced that the FY 2008 national cohort default rate is 7.0 percent, up from the FY 2007 rate of 6.7 percent. The default rates increased from 5.9 to 6 percent for public institutions, from 3.7 to 4 percent for private institutions, and from 11 to 11.6 percent for for-profit schools It has not gotten better…. Are you contesting 1, default rates to public institution are higher than loan default rates, 2, The total outstanding debt is over 850 billion, and likely to hit a trillion…and the taxpayer is once again underwriting a government loan program? 3 simple yes or no answers…
June 29, 2011 at 1:52 am #727479
kootchmanMemberPour on the gasoline..
June 29, 2011 at 1:54 am #727480
TDeParticipantNot entering the contest, my dear Mr. K. Just posting sites where information can be checked out, like the Department of Education site and the Higher Education Chronicle. Gasoline is so toxic – Bad fumes. :)
June 29, 2011 at 2:43 pm #727481
redblackParticipantwhen a source as mediocre as wikipedia disagrees with you… wiki says it more elegantly than i could, though. these are well-cited, non-flagged entries.
it was a case of banks and wall street aggressively marketing bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and telling them that they could afford them, and republicans lowering lending standards to make it all legal.
what happened to fannie after the bubble burst – i.e. TARP – falls squarely on the shoulders of hank paulsen and george w. bush.
Three important catalysts of the subprime crisis were the influx of moneys from the private sector, the banks entering into the mortgage bond market, and the predatory lending practices of the mortgage lenders, specifically the adjustable-rate mortgage, 2–28 loan, that mortgage lenders sold directly or indirectly via mortgage brokers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[17] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#1990s
In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[24]
The intent was that Fannie Mae’s enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency’s underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: “We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
“Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this “layered-risk” lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, “One of the things we don’t feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors.”[25]
Congress, controlled by Republicans during this period, did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which did not proceed out of committee to the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#2000s
Then in 2003-2004 , the subprime mortgage crisis began.[33] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.
The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance[33] that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages – particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae#The_mortgage_crisis_from_late_2007
June 30, 2011 at 12:11 am #727482
kootchmanMemberIs mentioning George Bush making the problem go away? Noooo.
Is mentioning George Bush going t get us off the hook for underwriting a few hundreds of billions in student loans? noooo
Is mentioning George Bush going to force UW to trim and cut waste? noooo
Just read today that 16% tuition hike is now passe’…UW is going for 20 per cent plus… why is it when the private sector takes such massive hits in income, UW, city of Seattle, WA State isn’t indexed to take a little hit for the “team”? Seems almost fair…
See any businesses raising prices 20% lately? Noooo.
June 30, 2011 at 12:13 am #727483
kootchmanMemberTSA is why George Bush is going to go to hell.
June 30, 2011 at 3:00 am #727484
datamuseParticipantJust read today that 16% tuition hike is now passe’…UW is going for 20 per cent plus… why is it when the private sector takes such massive hits in income, UW, city of Seattle, WA State isn’t indexed to take a little hit for the “team”? Seems almost fair…
Because the real cost of college educating your kid is not and never has been reflected in the price of tuition. Tuition at public and large-endowment private institutions has historically been mostly subsidized and what you pay is a percentage of the overall cost. But in an economic recession, tuition (especially at public institutions) goes up because–guess what?–educational subsidies decline. UW is taking a huge cut in state funding–in the past three years, state funding to the University of Washington has fallen by FIFTY PERCENT. Of COURSE tuition will rise.
College education generally doesn’t scale well. You’re paying for a highly personalized service from very highly educated people. That costs. In fact, if you compare the price of college tuition against other services employing highly educated people who provide personalized face to face service (doctors and lawyers, for instance), you’ll notice something: the prices for those services has gone up as well. And at just about the same rate over time.
Kootchman, you’re operating on the assumption that because tuition is going up precipitously, UW must be doing something wrong. Let me ask you this: how much funding per student do the states you and your wife are from provide to their state schools? I’m willing to bet it’s higher than the 35% per student that UW will receive from the state of Washington with this new budget.
(And before you ask: yes, I work in higher ed. No, I don’t work for UW. I work for a small, private, liberal arts institution that receives most of its funding from student tuition. Not all private institutions have huge endowments, which is one reason Harvard is so much nicer than us.)
June 30, 2011 at 5:36 am #727485
hooper1961Memberdon’t forget 5% of the uw tuition increase is an added (tax) on tuition paying parents. how is it fair to shift tuition dollars from people paying tuition for there own kids to be forced to pay added costs for other students. most parents are struggling to pay for there own kids tuition and to force more costs on is simply unjust.
June 30, 2011 at 1:08 pm #727486
redblackParticipantkootch: no. i, for one, mention george w bush 1. as an illustrative example of how not to run an economy in hopes that the country doesn’t fall for that crap again and 2. to illustrate how those policies caused obama to be handed the biggest turd sandwich since 1929.
June 30, 2011 at 4:59 pm #727487
datamuseParticipantHooper1961, you’re talking like that percentage is the ONLY amount of paid tuition that goes toward financial aid. It’s not. Are you going to argue next that you shouldn’t pay taxes that go to fund the university (however little that is, these days) because you don’t have a student in college?
That’s the kind of thinking that got us here.
July 1, 2011 at 2:42 am #727488
kootchmanMembersince you asked…and there is roughly 800 million “missing” in this number for re, contracts, private/ public sponsored research…. Musst have had coffee with Gregoire….still sucking the crack pipe of federal student loans… “if they can borrow, we can charge more”….
“Total projected state support for SUNY for FY 2007-08 is $3,484 billion of the university’s $10,080.5 billion budget.”
and
Tuition $4,970 Four year undergraduate degree
And here is the best part…. Andrew Cuomo… heretofore mentioned for his central role as one of the “Skeezers” who blackmailed banks for subprime home mortgages, took 308 million from student tuition hikes to cover his welfare budget shortfalls…taking 308 bucks from students for the general fund and giving SUNY $38 bucks of the increase.
That answer your question?
July 1, 2011 at 3:11 am #727489
kootchmanMemberhooper…. glad you made that point…. SUNY CANNOT by law, offer tiered tuition based upon family income…. if tour family makes 120K you pay the full tuition… if your family makes 50K you pay full tuition…. Affordable to ALL.. Original post title has survived the leftest onslaught… UW tuition increases are a FARCE. SUNY produces 20 graduate degrees per 1000 population… (5th place) and WA 12 (22nd place) …
July 1, 2011 at 3:35 am #727490
kootchmanMemberI used to say “if you won’t invest in yourself, why should I?” I assumed that a good summer job, some part time and weekend work, would make college affordable… that was my offer to pay for college AFTER graduation… at these tuition rates..that fell by the wayside… a note to all… those jobs I thought would be available? Poof, gone… Best Place to do biz survey.. Wa workforce 20th. Cost of Doing Business 20th place, General Economy, 32nd place, Cost of Living 37th place, Business “friendly”…37th place…. WA fell five places, from 15th to 20th…. the biggest loser in the survey…. (CNBC) WASHINGTON! Gotta love a Democrat controlled House Senate and Governor…. yea, let’s go get those wealthy, rich, greedy, business owners….before they leave the state!
July 1, 2011 at 3:37 am #727491
kootchmanMemberQUOTE:
Washington was one of the biggest losers in CNBC’s annual study ranking the nation’s top states for business. The Evergreen State fell five places dropping to 20th in the rankings released on Tuesday.
One of the biggest reasons the state dropped in the rankings revolves around Washington’s low markings in its cost of doing business. This category includes a company’s tax burden, utility costs and costs of wages. Washington ranks 43rd in this category.
Now… ask the state unionized work force… think it might be time to share the pain? No? OK
http://www.king5.com/home/Biggest-loser-Washington-tumbles-in-CNBC-business-rankings-124812814.html
July 1, 2011 at 4:37 am #727492
jamminjMembernot sure if the challenge is still in effect, but Kootch, here’s your chance:
It’s Time to Put Up or Shut Up for People Who Blame the CRA for the Housing Crisis
“the CRA, a 1977 anti-redlining law, didn’t even cover the unregulated lenders who made most of the subprime loans during the housing boom. There’s simply no evidence for this assertion.”
July 1, 2011 at 5:06 am #727493
kootchmanMemberOh good lord… reading the Washington Independent…. is like asking you to sit on the edge of the seat for the musings of Glenn Beck… from the wisdom of that long gone sage of common sense. my dad…. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.. First CRA WAS a response to racist, redlining… we can agree on that. Where we divert, is where and how it evolved. Fast forwarding… Bawny Fwank, Janet Reno, Maxine Walters, Chuck Shumer, at al….vastly increased the scope and used every organ of the federal government to let the skeezers through the door. That would include over 1200 lawsuits to anyone who made mortgage loans… including private placement religious groups, insurance companies, etc… a relatively reasonable and fair program became the hog trough it was. Consider it the match, than smoldered until successive administrations and Congress proceeded to add more and more fuel with increasing volatility. I will leave it at that. I pulled CRA into the fray as an illustration of government inserting itself into domains it then can’t regulate, enforce, or wilfully abuses for political gain. My concern, is, UW tuition increases are a farce… they are there to cover an institution that is horriby managed, overburdened with excess debt, porked out on labor expense, that is failing the mission of an affordable education to all qualified children of the taxpayer. To maintain that status quo, they raise tuition knowing that loans are available …. putting students at risk of not having equal opportunity… debt takes away sooo many options in life… specially the opportunity to takes risks… the lynch pin of economic opportunity.
July 1, 2011 at 5:06 am #727494
kootchmanMemberOh good lord… reading the Washington Independent…. is like asking you to sit on the edge of the seat for the musings of Glenn Beck… from the wisdom of that long gone sage of common sense. my dad…. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.. First CRA WAS a response to racist, redlining… we can agree on that. Where we divert, is where and how it evolved. Fast forwarding… Bawny Fwank, Janet Reno, Maxine Walters, Chuck Shumer, at al….vastly increased the scope and used every organ of the federal government to let the skeezers through the door. That would include over 1200 lawsuits to anyone who made mortgage loans… including private placement religious groups, insurance companies, etc… a relatively reasonable and fair program became the hog trough it was. Consider it the match, than smoldered until successive administrations and Congress proceeded to add more and more fuel with increasing volatility. I will leave it at that. I pulled CRA into the fray as an illustration of government inserting itself into domains it then can’t regulate, enforce, or wilfully abuses for political gain. My concern, is, UW tuition increases are a farce… they are there to cover an institution that is horriby managed, overburdened with excess debt, porked out on labor expense, that is failing the mission of an affordable education to all qualified children of the taxpayer. To maintain that status quo, they raise tuition knowing that loans are available …. putting students at risk of not having equal opportunity… debt takes away sooo many options in life… specially the opportunity to takes risks… the lynch pin of economic opportunity.
July 1, 2011 at 5:15 am #727495
kootchmanMemberMy waiter at the chicken wings shack on California…. taking her part time, brain deadening job, in order to pay off student loans instead of taking a wild hair leap into the unknown. I arrived in WA in a used school bus, purchased at a bus auction in Poland NY for $250 bucks, living variously on side streets, the parking lot of the old Navy base at Sandpoint, Ballard, etc… No debt. College degree paid for. Good luck finding that freedom now…. y;know… I never even thought of food stamps, free medical care, unemployment… I was looking for opportunity with a newly minted degree in economics with an English minor.
July 1, 2011 at 5:32 am #727496
kootchmanMemberBTY… messr redblack…. I did take out ARMS aplenty… for the houses I bought to flip…. they were a good deal and worked fine… but hell, call me foolish… but damnit…when ya borrow a quarter million plus… you should be able to read the damn contract AND ALWAYS hire your OWN attorney for real property transactions. If you can’t read or don’t understand what you are reading…what are you doing signing a contract for real property?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.