View Full Version : High-Minded Dissent or Deadbeat Rationalization?
Here's a guy who decided to default on the student loans he took out for his three Ivy League degrees so he could "choose life" over taking a job with a salary that might make it possible to repay what he borrowed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/why-i-defaulted-on-my-student-loans.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
While I found his sense of entitlement breathtaking in light of all the taxpaying truck drivers and store clerks who will now pick up the tab for him; it made me wonder. Does there need to be a moral element to our transactions over and above the legal structure for a financial system to operate at its most efficient? There will always be ways to game the legal rules. This guy obviously spent time weighing the impact to his credit against all those payments he wouldn't have to make, but it didn't seem to bother him that he chose to dishonor his promise to repay the loans. Could we at some point consider shame to be a positive social and economic good?
I wonder if his mother died younger than she should have due to the stress of him defaulting and the creditors coming after her since she co-signed. I read a few of the comments and one was from a dad who is having his life destroyed because his son defaulted on student loans.
Maybe we could add shameful unnecessary defaults to all the other weird and awful things we use as a measure of GDP. Or do we already do that?
I've got only slightly mixed feelings about this. The cost of higher education is absurd, and the burden of people who take on the goal can be crushing, and they're so young and naive when they make this socially encouraged choice. HOWEVER, a promise is a promise. Unless the government steps in to force these institutions to rebate some of their outrageous tuition fees to the outstanding loans, this guy should remain on the hook for the promises he made, he gets very little sympathy from me.
iris lilies
6-9-15, 12:09pm
How many of these students loans do NOT have co-signer? I always thought it was insane that lenders give 19 year old people loans for $50,ooo, but then I kept hearing about parents,grandparents, nuts and uncles who co signed.
the moral turpitude is in full force when one screws over one's co signer who was, presumably a loved one. I guess it is less in force when one screws over the nameless faceless masses of society, at least it is easier to ignore them sine they aren't in our immediate circle or concern.
I think our generation been fed a load of garbage about how it is automatically better to have an ivy league degree. They have GREAT PR. Not that having one isn't a good thing, but we've been groomed to believe that, much like the $60K princess wedding, the $200K Princeton degree is the only one that's really any good, and for our child, godchild, grandchild, Only The Best Will Do. Even if we ourselves don't make that much money in four years. There's this enormous push to say, "if he qualified to get into Harvard, then all sense be damned, he should go there." Which, to a degree, haha, is almost like saying "if he Really Wants a Lambourgini, well then he should have one!"
I understand that Ivy League schools promise a good degree plus cachet and connections. But the truth is, not all of us can afford to buy this particular product, and there are alternatives that are also good, but we're not steered in that direction.
ETA: nothing against Princeton, it just sounded alliterative alongside Princess.
ETA: holy crap. Maybe I should rethink this post. The middle-of-the-road university I went to, no cachet and no connections, is now charging $32,000 a year. Sorry if I'm out of touch! Hey, all you 17 year olds: AP classes and community college!!!
I also don't understand the mindset of some people who feel they have a right and responsibility to default on their loans because the system/Fannie Mae/BofA sucks--it's a very convenient act of civil disobedience--you don't go to jail but you get to bail on your obligations.
I cosigned a loan for my DD, and I also took out parent loans for her, and I've been paying and will be paying for a while. I remember back in her junior year realizing I needed to get an additional semester's worth of loans, and was absolutely floored at how easy it was to just phone in a $12,000 debt during my lunch hour.
I now feel I should have been less willing to pay for a private liberal arts college--my sons did the community college-to-state university route and they've been fine. But in any case, I'm not happy about paying these loans off until I'm 68, but that's what I signed up for.
The article's author went to expensive schools. I have very little patience with people who go to expensive schools and then have the nerve to bellyache about their burdensome loan debt. No one forced him to go to the expensive school. Poster child for those who refuse to take responsibility for their choices in life.
The article's author went to expensive schools. I have very little patience with people who go to expensive schools and then have the nerve to bellyache about their burdensome loan debt. No one forced him to go to the expensive school. Poster child for those who refuse to take responsibility for their choices in life.
His view on the State school was "I thought I deserved better".
Me, I went the Big Ten college route funded by summer jobs and an ROTC obligation. My parents couldn't contribute much, but they did imbue me with a sense that I was entitled to what I could pay for, and no more. Subsequently, survival in a mega-university and military service confirmed my belief that I was not in fact the center of the universe. I pity someone who has come to feel otherwise.
Although I don't condone breaking one's promise to pay, I think any public shame needs to go to the schools/banks/loan companies/policies that allowed educational debt to proliferate. We need to be teaching our kids (in school) all about personal finance and debt starting when they're very young. Perhaps we should be having entrepreneurship and trade classes so that there are options for those not suited to traditional college. In any case, purchasing goods and services has become a conundrum of confusion so no wonder so many are in debt. For example, it took me two weeks to understand, compare and finally purchase home and auto insurance because it is so darn complicated. Even then, I look at the policies and have unanswered questions.
ETA: holy crap. Maybe I should rethink this post. The middle-of-the-road university I went to, no cachet and no connections, is now charging $32,000 a year. Sorry if I'm out of touch! Hey, all you 17 year olds: AP classes and community college!!!
I have 2 sons entering college as freshmen this fall. Son#1's college is more expensive at 60,000+ a year. Thankful for merit scholarships, grants, and other scholarships but his out of pocket expense is still going to be as much as a state college. He's got enough money to get him through 2 years and then he'll have to come up with more money.....or loans or take breaks to work or transfer. Son#2's college is over $30,000 a year and he also has scholarships and grants. He'll have enough money for all 4 years but is considering PT which is 3 additional years.
"Financial Award" letters from both schools included lines for loans and parentplus loans. I drew a line through both of those. I'm not sure how they do it but they make it sound like the loans are part of the award. Ummmm.....no.
Princeton is basically free if you cannot afford to attend. Princeton has a no-loans policy, and makes up all financial need of a student with grants.
That said, last year's bill for my daughter's freshman year there was approaching $60k when you added everything up. I had to write a check for the amount, we don't qualify for aid because there is an asset test, and I did not game the structure of our finances to qualify, though our yearly income is miniscule.
Her four years there will run ~$250k total.
I have no sympathy for this fellow who skipped out on his promises.
TVRodriguez
6-9-15, 2:49pm
I think our generation been fed a load of garbage about how it is automatically better to have an ivy league degree. They have GREAT PR.. . . . There's this enormous push to say, "if he qualified to get into Harvard, then all sense be damned, he should go there."
I agree. I recently read an article (wish I'd saved it) discussing a study that showed that kids who work hard enough in high school to gain admittance to an Ivy but who choose to attend a state (or other) school do as well 10 years out, as those who attend the Ivy. I read this with great personal satisfaction because I got into an Ivy but couldn't afford it, so I went to my state university on scholarship. Ten years out of school, I was in a law firm where my office was right next to a double Ivy grad, and we were doing the EXACT same work for the EXACT same salary.
This is not to say that there are not other routes or that those who do not gain admittance to an Ivy are in any way "lesser." This is just comparing two possible routes for those who do seek Ivy admittance and showing the same result regardless of route.
I agree. I recently read an article (wish I'd saved it) discussing a study that showed that kids who work hard enough in high school to gain admittance to an Ivy but who choose to attend a state (or other) school do as well 10 years out, as those who attend the Ivy.
I've seen those studies. I guess the key is what you mean by "do as well". Usually the articles are very crass and use "salary" as the metric. I think this is a mistake.
Guess what - top notch liberal arts institutions aren't *really* about churning out high wage earners. It is quite true that organizations that pay high salaries (Wall Street, law firms) use those institutions as part of their sorting process, so *some* of the students that attend are there just for the line in their resume so they can get The Big Bucks at The Fancy Employers. However, *some* of the students are truthfully there because the quality of the education in their particular field is unequalled at other schools.
When I went to Princeton, it wasn't because it was Princeton. It was because it had the best physics program in the nation, and the best applied mathematics department on earth. My daughter selected Princeton over Oxford and St. Andrews because her area of interest is best served by Princeton and there she has the most other options if she changes her mind - and in addition, St. Andrews/Princeton/Oxford have an exchange program between the three schools, so she can do some of her work at each institution. Our really quite good Washington schools simply don't offer what she wants, or needs. But she's not going to be measuring her success by "dollars earned 10 years out" - she'll probably be digging ditches in Finland 10 years from now, looking for data, which is not a high-paying profession.
She'll never receive a reasonable "return on investment" for the $250k+, if "return" is measured in dollars. If "return" is instead measured by "I managed to get a post-doc appointment to be Dr. Lara Croft, Tomb Raider", she is likely to come out with a positive outcome.
The deal I'm offering my daughter is to contribute the published cost of four years at our flagship State U (Or maybe a bit less, to ensure she's got a little skin in the game). If she goes pricey private, she has to make up the difference. If she scores well in the scholarship game, she finishes school with some start-up capital.
I'm not entirely sure what "success" is. I'm pretty sure the name on your diploma isn't generally a significant factor. I do think that if she grows up to write self-justifying editorials about the nobility of breaking her word, I will have to consider myself to be a bit of a failure.
flowerseverywhere
6-9-15, 7:51pm
The quality of the education you get at any school depends on what you major in and what classes you take. At every school there are people who take advanced science, math and engineering or medical classes. There is a group of students who will search out the easiest classes and majors and fill their schedules to fit around their social life.
i don't think it is right to decide you don't want to pay back what you promised. Remember we had a poster here who had huge loans (I think it was law) and thought they were entitled not to pay back their loans if they did not want to be a practicing attorney? It was one of those very "interesting" discussion.
you can't decide not to pay child support, not to pay for electricity etc. I particularly feel bad for parents who try to do the right thing by consigning and end up getting burnt.
I'm often puzzled by the way some people are willing--eager, even--to hold themselves up to public ridicule. This guy's whinefest produced an entirely predictable result: In today's letters to the editor in the Times he was roundly pilloried. Did he really expect to get any sympathy? He's now marked for life as a self-pitying deadbeat. What the hell was he thinking?
ApatheticNoMore
6-10-15, 5:24pm
Even if one agrees student loans have become a problem, he's too arrogant to be sympathetic.
One could say it's a shame his parents didn't give him better advice about going to a state school and thus not ending up so much in debt, it's unfortunate many parents are unable to give their kids good advice on becoming adults, only it seems they actually did give this good advice.
I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school. Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.
he might win more sympathy if he acknowledged there are probably people working multiple jobs at Walmart and Target or something, with as much particular usefulness as him, that will never be developed due to circumstance. That he just got lucky and took advantage of it. He might then come across as less needing in psychiatric treatment for narcissism ("me and my particular usefulness to society" - snort). True there are occasional rare geniuses, that even then require lucky circumstances, but I really doubt he qualifies.
Besides where do you even go politically with an argument like his, you can start arguing for better funding for state schools to reduce student debt, and you realize dude is too arrogant for state schools. I mean sure those might be ok for the vulgar masses but not for such a special and unique snowflake. Private small liberal arts colleges for all?
I definitely would put him on the deadbeat side of the equation. But, on the other hand, how many large corporations have used bankruptcy over the years as a way to default on their pensions and union contracts and other financial agreements. We live in a whole deadbeat society. If we're going to hold physical people to some sort of moral standard we need to include large corporations. After all, they're people too.
ApatheticNoMore
6-10-15, 9:28pm
But, on the other hand, how many large corporations have used bankruptcy over the years as a way to default on their pensions and union contracts and other financial agreements. We live in a whole deadbeat society. If we're going to hold physical people to some sort of moral standard we need to include large corporations.
you could compare him to them, but you could compare him to 1) all those people who didn't go to college because it's too expensive - not to mention all those who couldn't for other reasons (whom a person like him probably looks down on) 2) all those people who went to state schools and community college because it's too expensive to do otherwise, even at the cost of taking years and years to graduate in some cases (who he might look down on as well) 3) all those people who ended up with expensive college debt from expensive schools who paid it off or took work to pay it off (like working in an inner city school for partial debt forgiveness etc.). Which I think more people do than compare him to out of control corporations that noone can do anything about anyway.
He was born in 1957. So this isn't about the current ridiculously high cost of college. He worked as an editor until 1998 and since then has been writing full time -- fairly successfully from the look of it. Granted, being an editor doesn't pay a lot, but NYC wasn't as expensive as it is now from 1977 to 1998. He could have paid his loans off. He just didn't want to.
Pisses me off, to be honest. Why did he need both an MA AND an MPhil from Columbia?
My DH made it through the cultural revolution, scrambled his way to a top school in China once the college entrance exams were reopened, and eventually made it to the US for grad school. The two of us cobbled together scholarships, fellowships, and part time teaching jobs and managed to get all the way through PhDs with no debt. That was in the '80s and '90s. We did it at a state school (go Huskies!), where my son will now be enrolling as an early entrance program student. If he wants to go to an Ivy he can do it for grad school.
I think expensive private schools can be great for some people, but it isn't the only way to get a great education. And if you make the CHOICE to go into debt don't whine about how you are later being forced into default. Don't sign the paperwork if you aren't willing to pay for what you are getting!
you could compare him to them, but you could compare him to 1) all those people who didn't go to college because it's too expensive - not to mention all those who couldn't for other reasons (whom a person like him probably looks down on) 2) all those people who went to state schools and community college because it's too expensive to do otherwise, even at the cost of taking years and years to graduate in some cases (who he might look down on as well) 3) all those people who ended up with expensive college debt from expensive schools who paid it off or took work to pay it off (like working in an inner city school for partial debt forgiveness etc.). Which I think more people do than compare him to out of control corporations that noone can do anything about anyway.
I think my point wasn't specifically to compare this guy to corporations, but to ask the larger question of why we hold individuals to a higher moral standard than we do corporations. For corporations it's expected that the only financial moral they have is to maximize shareholder wealth regardless of the consequences to countless individuals. If we expect individuals to not always act in their personal best interest why not corporations, especially considering how much more powerful they are in the grand scheme of things?
Interesting jp1. I came across that same argument about a different subject yesterday. It made me uncomfortable and I decided (again) that the problem is the corporate mentality (and ours as a society) that allows that level of irresponsible action, but, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right.
If we're going to hold physical people to some sort of moral standard we need to include large corporations. After all, they're people too.
I'm a little surprised that this conversation has not (yet?) taken the expected turn. It's one reason I avoid threads here that have even a whiff of politics about them. But jp1, I really appreciate your comment. If we (collectively) are willing to grant economic entities the same rights we extend to humans, we should hold both to the same moral standard -- preferably a higher one than exists now.
I'm a little surprised that this conversation has not (yet?) taken the expected turn. It's one reason I avoid threads here that have even a whiff of politics about them. But jp1, I really appreciate your comment. If we (collectively) are willing to grant economic entities the same rights we extend to humans, we should hold both to the same moral standard -- preferably a higher one than exists now.
Expected by who?
While I would agree that we hold both individuals and corporations to pathetically low standards of moral conduct, I don't see one or the other with any particular advantage.
I do think you need to distinguish between moral and legal standards, however. I think individuals may have a slight advantage there in that deep-pocketed corporations are more likely to be sued.
organictex
6-11-15, 6:30pm
i think the notion that student loan is a special kind of debt that cannot be discharged via
bankruptcy is also absurd. who is going to pay for these people's debt but the taxpayers?
congress has opened up a can of worms by allowing bank lobbyist to persuade them to allow
these loans to be not covered in any form of bankruptcy...we are heading toward a financial
cliff on this one :(
who is going to pay for these people's debt but the taxpayers?
(
I've heard a few stories where the student died in college and the loan companies went after the parents.
They want their money, regardless.
can they go after parents if the parents were not co signers?
organictex
6-11-15, 8:04pm
can they go after parents if the parents were not co signers?
no. they can go after a spouse, and if the person isnt married it will
fall to the taxpayers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.