Gas station without pumps

2012 August 18

Student debt

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 11:44
Tags: , , , , ,

My son will be a high school junior this year, so I’ve started paying closer attention to college costs. I’m not talking about the real cost of education at public schools, which has been remarkably stable, but about the share of it that parents and students are expected to pay, which has been soaring.

I’ve been saving since my son was born and have accumulated about 130% of our current household annual gross income in a 529 college savings plan—I’m hoping that will be enough for us to avoid having to take out loans, even if he spends many years in grad school as I did.  Most families do not live as far within their means as we do (not having a car helps, as does having scrimped for years to pay off the mortgage on a small house bought before the housing bubble), and most do not put such a high value on education, so few families will have saved as much of their income as we have for college expenses.  But low-cost college options are disappearing as states defund public colleges (which some see as a successful attempt kill off universities and turn them into training mills and job security for middle managers), so more families are going into debt to pay for college.

For the past 3 months I’ve been collecting articles about student debt, starting with a story from the NY Times by Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren: Student Loans Weighing Down a Generation With Heavy Debt – NYTimes.com and Cost of College’s commentary on that article.  The story can be boiled down to a sentence: Student debt has gotten huge and will be a major economic problem in coming years.

Student loan debt is not just a problem for youngsters just out of college. More and more older people are still paying off student loans for themselves or their children, interfering with saving for retirement (which will affect a lot of baby boomers, as pension funds were often woefully underfunded, relying on the huge investment returns of the 1990s that have now evaporated). Some people are even having their Social Security payments reduced to pay off student debt, making retirement even more precarious.

Much has been made of student debt now having gotten larger than credit card debt. The crossover happened around the beginning of 2010, as credit-card debt dropped from its peak around the beginning of 2009 to still high, but more rational levels of 2003. The article Student Debt bubble delinquencies surge shows graphs of the linear growth of total student debt from $200 billion in 2003 to $900 billion in 2012.  It also shows increases in the dropout rate and particularly high dropout rates in the for-profit colleges, which are the main pushers of enormous student debt.  It also plots delinquencies, which have been edging upward, though still not as high as for credit cards.

The NY Fed has some very nice graphs of Household debt by type, including some that show differences in per capita debt for different states.  California stands out as having the highest per capita debt, but that is almost entirely due to the high mortgages and home equity loans in California.  Student loan debt is much higher in states that defunded public universities sooner (like Michigan and Pennsylvania).  Auto loan and credit card debts are more uniform across states (except Texas, where car loans per capita are double elsewhere, being even bigger than student loans). Collateral-backed debt (mortgages, home equity loans, and automobile loans) are still vast majority of consumer debt in the US, but student loan debt has been growing from a negligible amount to more important than credit card debt.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a 132-page report on private student loans on 2012 July 20, though the private student loan bubble seems to have already collapsed along with the subprime mortgage market (both were fueled by the same securitization of low-quality debt). The market was $5 billion in 2001, $20 billion in 2008, $6 billion in 2011—that refers to loan origination, though, and most of the debt has been accumulating.  The private student loan market has been particularly lucrative for the for-profit colleges, but private student loans make up less then 15% of outstanding student debt, which is dominated by Federal student loans. One interesting observation is that many students taking out private student loans had not exhausted the Federal loans (particularly unsubsidized Stafford loans) available to them, despite the generally better terms of the Federal loans.  The report attributes this in part to marketing by the lenders that blurred the distinction between Federal and private loans, despite some major differences (like fixed interest rates for Federal loans but adjustable rates for most private loans—or fixed rates that are much higher than the rates for Federal loans).  Fixed rates for private student loans varied from 3.4% to 14% and variable rates from 3% to 19%, while Federal Stafford loans had a fixed 3.4% rate for subsidized and 6.8% for unsubsidized loans.  For the past couple of years, the unusually low interest rate environment has made the average adjustable rate loan slightly cheaper than the Stafford unsubsidized loan, though looking over a longer time period, only the most creditworthy borrowers could have gotten an adjustable rate that was better than the fixed Federal rate.  I’ve not read the entire report, but it seems to be implying that the private student loan market is predatory and needs some consumer-protection regulation, particularly for the vulnerable students at for-profit colleges (who I would argue have already been selected for extreme gullibility by the fact that they registered at a for-profit college).  The for-profit colleges are a growing part of college enrollment, though, as public colleges get slashed by legislators (thanks in part to lobbyists for for-profit colleges) and larger fractions of college-age students enroll in college.

The Chronicle of Higher Education summarized the report and subsequent Congressional hearings as calling for making the private student loan market more consumer friendly.  Undoubtedly a good idea, but kind of closing the barn door after the horses have been stolen.

In order to get grant aid or student loans (often misleading called “financial aid” though the loans more often hurt the students than help them, by encouraging them to pay more for college than they can afford), students’ families usually need to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form.  All students going to college are advised to fill out this form, unless their families are multi-millionaires (Mitt Romney probably wouldn’t fill out the form, since it requires disclosing information from income tax returns).  Even if students aren’t eligible for federal aid, many colleges use “Expected Family Contribution” computed from FAFSA data to figure out how much other aid to give—even so-called “merit aid” is usually based in part on whether the college thinks that the student can afford to attend.  About 80% of families with dependent undergrad students fill out the FAFSA (and probably 95% or more should do so). Different high schools have very different fractions of their students completing FAFSA forms, either from differences in fraction of students going on to college or differences in the quality of college guidance at the high schools.  The US Department of Education provides summary information about FAFSA completion by high school—you can look up the high school your student attends, or do whatever computations you can convince spreadsheet programs to do, since the data is released as spreadsheets.

Too many parents, though, are urging their kids to “think big” and are not paying enough attention to the real price. One approach to making college financial aid less confusing (and students less likely to fall victim to predatory lenders) is to simplify and standardize the statements colleges make about their prices.  The Obama administration has proposed a standardized “shopping sheet” that most colleges will probably use (since they have to for students with military benefits).  These may make college financing a little less confusing, though the high-tuition/high-aid model being pushed for the past decade or two and rapidly rising tuition rates have made it almost impossible for a parent to know how much a student’s education is going to cost at any given school.

The Cost of College blog post The twin problems of rising debt and falling wages for college graduates discusses the further problem that students with large debts are not finding jobs good enough to pay off the debt.  The problem is no limited to those students bilked by for-profit colleges into borrowing huge amounts for low-quality education in useless “business” or “communications” programs—even students with high-quality degrees in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields from good universities have difficulty.

The problem of finding jobs for STEM students has been discussed in various forums read by scientists: Helping students turn degrees into jobs — ScienceMag and The Commission on Pathways through Graduate School and into Careers. A big part of the problem is that industry stopped hiring (indeed laid off) many scientists, and the pipeline for production of PhDs and postdocs is set to produce many more scientists than the remaining job market can absorb.  This is particularly a problem in biology, as NIH has favored funding postdocs and temporary soft-money research positions for decades, destabilizing academic and research employment for biologists and creating a huge cadre of trained biologists with no permanent positions for them to be employed in.  (The pharmaceutical and biotech industry has not helped by rapidly reducing their investment in research and development.)

One bright spot is that my son is thinking of majoring in computer science and their graduates are still in demand both in industry and academia, though computer science seems to go through roller coaster rides in popularity, with more extreme fluctuations than almost any other field.  If we are near a peak in popularity now, we’ll probably be at a trough when my son get out of grad school.  He’s doing it for the intellectual interest, not the job market, though, so that is not a concern for him.  Also,  I suspect he’ll be among the top 1% of CS students, so I’m not too worried about his employment opportunities even if the job market is down.

17 Comments »

  1. Thank you. I’ve been watching posts about this myself, but you’ve delved much more deeply into it. I used to be so proud of my students, who are often the first to go to college in their families. But now, I worry for them.

    Comment by suevanhattum — 2012 August 18 @ 11:55 | Reply

  2. Very informative. Fantastic.
    Solution is again people of America .
    Support MITx and Harvardx project for higher education .
    Ask by million emails to provide online degree programs for 20 million Americans as well .
    That is the solution. They will make money, America will be educated at $ 10 per course from the best universities of the world .

    Comment by Muvaffak GOZAYDIN — 2012 August 18 @ 22:51 | Reply

    • I doubt very much that the EdX, Coursera, and other online course vendors are going to do anything to improve university education or make it more available cheaply. They may eventually be able to make enough money to survive, if they continue to get free content from universities using it as a recruiting tool. Once they start actually affecting university enrollment (if they ever do), the free content will dry up.

      What is more likely is that boosters of free online education will pretend that it already exists and use this pipe dream as an excuse to defund public universities further. At which point UC Berkeley may cease to exist, or stop being a university and turn into a contract research lab.

      Comment by gasstationwithoutpumps — 2012 August 18 @ 23:27 | Reply

      • Dear Sir
        It is pity that you do not know edx , MIT + Harvard+Berkeley, and Coursera and Udacity.
        Please be informed first then please comment.

        I am not American but educated at Caltech and Stanford 40 years ago and working on online education for the whole world for ther last 17 years as a volunteer. I work everyday 10 hours what is going on in the world regarding online ..

        MIT has a very long range plans regarding online . They do not need money. Like most of us who has enough to keep living , they want also recognations and successes.

        MIT started Opencourseware in 2001 and captured the world of education 100.000.000 people of the world . I asked them at that time ” do online ” They rejected . Nobody else has that yet. Even now they are extremely careful. They progress step by step in order not to disrupt anybody . They will provide degrees as well, but they do not declare it yet. They play low profile .

        They do not wish to create opponents like you thinking negatively . Since MIT was on the right tract; Harvard joined them. Harvard is not stupid . Can you claim they are . They thought that was the right thing to do . Now Berkeley also. I am sure Stanford and Yale will join them . Their target is 1 billion students. That means that is enough for the whole world .

        I would expect you , an intellegent person , would say :,
        ” Hey what shall we do with 1 billion MIT and Harvard smart graduates ? ”
        Instead you pray for their failure . Pitty.

        I am sorry to see that you cannot disringuish even edx and Coursera .
        Coursera is for profit . ( And will be unsuccessful for sure ) Just like University of Phoneix . I hope you know UOP well .

        I am mad some people even cannot distinguish black from white .
        You Americans kill yourself ,kill good projects and then blame government for not providing good education . You should know that I am indebted to America . I got a perfect education and 5 years of working experience in Silicon Valley in USA 40 years ago and I got a perfect 40 years life in my country due to education USA had given to me .

        It is the greatest opportunity for America to have edx. It is a win win case.
        Do not worry edx will make billions $ when they reach to millions of students within 3-4 years . Therefore it is a sustainable project, it will go on foreever in the world .

        Be careful world is after edx not USA. When they reach 1 billion (!!) 95% of the students are not Americans, and money will flow from world to MIT . Think. If they charge only
        $ 10 per course it makes $ 10 billion every year after year . Everybody can pay $ even 100
        then annual income is $ 100 billion . Think of it .Today budget of MIT is $ 2.5 and Harvard $ 3.7 billion . Think BIG like Americans . I learned it in America .

        Edx is perfect. My concern is what shall we do for the people who cannot do the hard courses of MIT and Harvard. We need a second tier consorsium like edx from Uni of Michigan, Uni of Illinois , PennState , Purdue , Northwestern and the likes .

        To me ( if I am wrong tell me ) if one cannot do even a college equal to Uni of Illinois he should not go to college , he should go to vocational colleges . World needs them too .
        Our plummer makes more money than our engineer son .
        I prefer to be a plummer instead of being a jobless engineer .

        Comment by Muvaffak GOZAYDIN — 2012 August 19 @ 07:31 | Reply

        • I am familiar with edX. I’m just not convinced that it is a great solution to the problems of higher education. EdX has not been reaching millions of students, and it is unlikely to do so. The differences between edX and Coursera are currently small—both are burning money at a high rate and neither has a plan that looks like it will be sustainable for more than a few years. The difference in how they are incorporated (for-profit vs. non-profit) may make a difference in a few years, and I agree with you that the non-profit organization makes more sense. But both have to come up with a revenue stream sufficient to meet expenses. There are a few courses that sound attractive to enough people to get the sorts of signups you envision, so it is unlikely that edX will ever be able to sustain a full university worth of courses. Others have tried that with varying success (Open University and ALISON, for example).

          I think that online education will form a component of higher education, but it is far from a perfect solution. There are a lot of aspects of college education that are extremely difficult to do on-line (like lab experiments, art studios, music and theater performance, field studies, … all the things that require doing, rather than just listening, reading, and taking quizzes).

          Comment by gasstationwithoutpumps — 2012 August 19 @ 10:23 | Reply

          • To gassstationwithoutpumps
            You do not comprehend the essense of online .
            1.- ONLINE is for millions.

            2.- Therefore online must be done by top schools who can attract millions
            ( MIT knew that 12 years ago and they set jup their strategy accordingly)
            Therefore they appeal to the world not to the USA only .
            Therefore even when they charge only $ 10 they will collect billions .

            3.- The investment of 1 online course is roughly $ 1 million .
            If it is taken by 1 million students in 5 years or 100.000 students per semester cost per
            students is only $ 1 . I say if MIT charges only $ 10 per course they can
            recover income of $ 10 million per coourse . $ 9 cover all recurring costs
            plus internet platform. ( Do not forget Harvard will use the same platform )
            I can make a sensitivity anaysis as well, then amortise it in 10 years .

            4.- MIT and Harvard have the most valuable knowledge in the world accumulated in
            centruies. Plus MIT has the know how of how to develop online courses
            LEARNING is a science now . MIT has a knowhow on that .

            5.- COURSERAis for profit therefore they offer immediately many courses.
            It is pitty that you compare Coursera, Alison, Udacity with EDX .
            They do not have any education experience , even they do not have a business plan .

            6.- EDX is not for only USA, it is for the world. Therefore it will be a success.
            Again number of students, that is scale, is the most important aspect.
            Millions can be only reached being open to the world .
            Recent MITx course is followed by 15 % Americans 85 % foreign students .

            7.- Pleasae do not insist that edx is free. It is not. But since the cost is as said above only
            $ 1 per course they do not need to charge a big amount per course . I say $ 10, but
            may be they will charge $ 50 per course .

            8.- Most of the material of online MIT courses 2,200 courses are ready at MIT
            prepared in the last 12 years within the OCW project + they have 100,000,000 captive
            customers already . So new courses will not cost even $ 1 million as I said .

            9.- $ 60 million for MIT + Harvard is only a pocket money

            10.- Yes. ONLINE is understood very wrong in the USA. 1300 colleges are using ONLINE
            at the same fee as oncampus fee for only 200-300 students with many power point
            presentation . Don’t tell me I am not right.I took several course from Uni of Maryland
            paying $ 1,500 for a marketing course instructor being an ex marketing manager of
            a company . UMUC supposewdly one of the best .

            11.- MIT ONLINEs are so good even $ 50.000 tuition paying students are taking edx
            courses .

            12.- You should read the comments of hundreds of the last MITx course at Facebook
            One of the best follower was from Mongolia with tremendous clubs of fans in every
            country .

            Sure there are more to be done .
            But let us support edx . At least it is better than University of Phoenix, and all online degree programs in the USA. ( Many online consultants are angy, since they will be outdated by edx ) . Because of that the concept of online conceived as inferior in the USA and USA stayed 10 years behind the world in online

            There are lots to be said . mgozaydin@hotmail.com

            Comment by Muvaffak GOZAYDIN — 2012 August 19 @ 11:41

  3. Go to http://www.ebx.org for MIT +Harvard+ Berkeley consoretium for the world.
    It is a win win case. Everybody wins . Support them, ask them to provide degfree programs , they can do it. They can make mloney as well. You see that is a project both sides makes money. People of America and these top schools . Unbelieveble .

    Comment by Muvaffak GOZAYDIN — 2012 August 18 @ 22:54 | Reply

  4. Sorry.
    I missed one point. EDX is not free. EDX will charge for the exams and certificates a small fee they declared so . But only for start up edx will not charge a fee even for exams this fall only .

    I saw now , you mention edx as a vendor of online .

    I strongly reject that title . Please apologise from edx .

    Also the word ” cheap ” is not a very proper word

    EDX will not be cheap, since it is vision, since it is revolution
    the cost is nill therefore they will charge only a small fee.
    They do not cheat people like online degree programs even in State universities . By the way you do not object 1300 online program providing colleges ( They charge the same tuition as on campus tuitions )
    but you object edx, MIT x+ Harvardx . Pitty .

    Comment by Muvaffak GOZAYDIN — 2012 August 19 @ 07:46 | Reply

    • EdX is a vendor, though they are currently giving away free product as a publicity stunt. We’ll see whether they are still giving stuff away in 5 years, when the publicity value of free online courses has dropped way down. Maybe they will find a continuing value in giving away the courses. It is, as you say, not enormously expensive to recycle old courses this way. Creating new courses is more expensive, and it is not clear that MIT, Harvard, and Berkeley will continue to offer new courses online once the publicity value is gone.

      The cost is not nil. Harvard and MIT invested $60 million in starting up edX, and that money is only expected to last a few years. After that, they are hoping that some more sustainable business model will occur to them.

      I have not objected to the existence of edX—I’ve even considered having my home-schooled son take some of their courses—I just don’t think that it will have the enormous positive impact on higher education that you imagine. And I do see several downsides to on-line education that need to be addressed and mitigated—not the least of which is that overly enthusiastic proponents of online education will use their dreams for it as an excuse to gut existing public colleges, leaving us with fewer options for quality education, not more.

      Comment by gasstationwithoutpumps — 2012 August 19 @ 10:32 | Reply

  5. Yes.
    One has to believe sometimes.
    So I believe edx. In fact I like to say MITx + Harvardx

    MIT +Harvard have the top brains in the world .
    They say at least their target is 1 billion, even if they achieve only 100,000,000 , the existing customers of MITx it will be a great success .

    It is much different than any online in the USA.
    I believe edx so much and I am promoting it in every platform in the world .

    It will develop a better economy for the USA + world will have more respect to the USA more than any propaganda( ! ) can do .

    Comment by Muvaffak GOZAYDIN — 2012 August 19 @ 11:56 | Reply

  6. Muvaffak GOZAYDIN, while I hope that online education can someday enable millions (or billions) to receive quality education, I am also skeptical. I agree with many of the points that gasstationwithoutpumps has mentioned and would like to add one more. You have stated many times that because MIT and Harvard are excellent schools with excellent minds behind them, MITx and Harvardx will be able to provide excellent education online. One important distinction, however, between attending MIT and Harvard in person versus online is that a LARGE benefit received from attending a top university is in the networking you are able to do there. Yes, there are great professors there, but the real benefit of those professors for their students is that those students have renowned professors in their network! I can back this assertion up with my own experience. I attended a “good” but not elite undergraduate college and attended one of the 8 “ivy league” universities for graduate school (in education, by the way). While my instructors at the “ivy league” school were much more renowned in their field, I got much less out of the classes because they were not necessarily good teachers. Nor were they necessarily interested in being good teachers. However, because I have made connections with them, it has been relatively easy for me to find a job. As a result, if I had the option of receiving an online degree from the “good” college or the “ivy league” college, I would absolutely choose the “good” college as it had superior classes and the networking advantage is void with online courses. This is what I think of whenever I hear someone raving about how exciting it is to have MIT and Harvard producing online educational content and how this must mean than everyone will now receive the best education in the world. The best education is any education taught by a teacher who is good at teaching and knows the subject well and this can happen just as easily in a rural community college as at Harvard.

    Comment by Sheri — 2012 August 21 @ 13:04 | Reply

    • Thanks Sheri .
      I quote you
      ” The best education is any education taught by a teacher who is good at teaching and knows the subject well and this can happen just as easily in a rural community college as at Harvard ”

      1.- A teacher good at teaching and knows the subject well would not stay in a community college, even not a regular college. he would be hired by ivy schools immediately.
      2.- If there were enough
      teachers good at teaching and knows the subject well,
      there would not be any problem regarding education in USA.

      That is the very reason we need technology. But not the online already being used by 1300 colleges in the USA. They are not online education they are power point presentation by some instructor even not by teachers . First you should stop them . Some even for profits. Unfortunately people go to those colleges with Federal Money then they claim they cannot find a job they cannot repay the loan .

      Coming to MIT
      They have the best teachers in the world as well as the best researchers in the world .
      Some may not be very good but most are . If this was not true MIT would not be a BIG , TOP school. They proved that they are good by centruies not overnight .

      First time in the histyory of USA, we have online courses by MIT.

      1.- MIT has the knowledge and knowhow of ” how to learn ” , be careful not how to teach.
      With this new project they are also after to learn ” how people learn ”
      This is the biggest research project world ever has . Target 1 billion DATA .

      To MIT ” learning is important “.
      You are a teacher, therefore naturally you have to defend teaching.

      Your personel experience does not make one statement true .
      Please look up the problem from a larger angles .

      MIT has a long range planning. MIT started online by OCW project in 2001 . They learned a lot and after that they started experimental online coıurses . They are the only one in the world believing ” online is for millions ”
      Now they have 100.000.000 customers in the world with OCW.
      Only MIT can attract millions in the world ,
      only MIT can carry the burden of very high investment of the online course development

      Only MIT has the best knowledge about the subjects not a community college or just a college .

      Sure oncampus students of MIT is better than MITx students.
      They are able to pay the price. Good for them too. But if MITx students would get at least ( my guess ) at least 80 % of what MIT oncampus students get , that is good enough .

      Last word MITx learning is better than any community or regular college at a nill price .
      ( Probably they will charge $ 10 or so per course )

      There is no more teaching, there is learning now . And ” learning is a science now ”

      I am skeptical about something else
      1.- What shall we do with 1 billion MITX and Harvardx graduates
      2.- They may be a monopol

      So I say we need second tier online schools too under the guidance and knowhow of MITx .
      Such as Purdue, Uni of Michigan, Uni of Illinois .

      Comment by mgozaydin — 2012 August 22 @ 06:52 | Reply

      • You made a comment that makes it clear that you know little about higher education in the US: “A teacher good at teaching and knows the subject well would not stay in a community college, even not a regular college. he would be hired by ivy schools immediately.” That has not been true for the 30 years I’ve been a professor, and probably longer. The Ivy League schools (Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University—note that MIT is not Ivy League) do not hire faculty for their teaching skills, but for their research renown. In many fields it is extremely difficult to get a permanent teaching position, even for a first-rate teacher, because the US colleges and universities have been moving more and more to permanent administrators and temporary faculty. There are many faculty in the community colleges who are better teachers (but poorer researchers) than many at the Ivy Leagues.

        What people are paying for at the Ivy League schools and other first-rank schools is not, primarily, the teaching, which tends to be only slightly better than average for US colleges. They are paying for the immersion in the culture of the school.

        MIT is an excellent school, largely because it has a huge number of very bright people (faculty and students) who are willing to put all their time into esoteric studies at the edges of science and technology. The online MITx classes provide only a tiny shadow of that excellence, like watching a soccer game instead of playing. It may sell well, but it is not at all the same experience. I doubt very much that EdX will ever get close to 80% of the MIT experience as you so fervently believe—I’ll be amazed if they ever offer more than 10–20% of the courses and if those courses ever get more than 40% of the value of the on-campus ones. There is value to offering that 10% to the world, and I’m pleased that MIT is doing so, but don’t fool yourself into believing that they are giving away everything they have or that they will make huge sums of money by selling MOOCs. You’re dreaming.

        I don’t think you need to worry about billions of EdX graduates—few people have the time or energy to devote to learning full time and only about 10% of those who start a MOOC class complete it. The numbers who will finish the equivalent of a full degree program, including the boring but essential parts, if EdX ever scales up to offering a complete degree program, is probably only a few tens of thousands—a nice deal for those who do it, but not enough make a big dent in the need for higher education.

        Comment by gasstationwithoutpumps — 2012 August 22 @ 10:36 | Reply

        • Sheri
          You are a teacher.
          You decided I do know little about USA education .
          That is your decision.

          I have gone to top USA schools for 8 years + have been on the executive board of a top school for 15 years in Boston area + I have been studying USA HE system for the last 17 years from internet .

          You are right, I decided also I know not little but nothing. The more I know the more I know nothing .

          Sheri you negate yourself in one sentence .
          ” a good teacher and who knows the subject matter can be hired immediately ”
          that is what I said .

          You say now ” top schools hire research renown . ” That means the ones who knows the subject well. So you agree with me .

          So if on top of it if they are good teachers top schools would hire them immediately. Very simple logic.

          Also if one is a good teacher but he does not know his subject what he will teach., to be good teacher ????
          It seems USA colleges are full of good teachers who do not know their subject matter, That is the reason of level of colleges today .

          I am amazed you decided by yourself that

          ” teaching in the ivy schools are a little better than average college ”

          Bravissimo. I am glad I am not your student.

          Sure you do not know

          ” MIT’s $ 50.000 tuition paying students are also took the MITx first course in electronic engineering. Academically MITx is even better than regular MIT curriculum so that even very high tuition paying students follow MITx courses .”

          You say you are a 30 years professor. I am a 40 years engineer and entrepreneur.
          We never get along. Therefore I do not want to comment rest of the comments you made.

          Time will show . I hope I live another 10 years and answer you again .

          I say ” everybody should say whatever they want , but that delays many good projects too ”
          mgozaydin@hotmail.clom

          Comment by mgozaydin — 2012 August 25 @ 23:16 | Reply

          • I think that you have confused what Sheri said and what I said. I don’t think I’m succeeding in getting you to read and understand what I say, so I’ll stop responding to your comments on this thread.

            Comment by gasstationwithoutpumps — 2012 August 25 @ 23:33

          • I am right we never get along . Thanks .

            Comment by mgozaydin — 2012 August 26 @ 12:22

  7. […] Student debt […]

    Pingback by Blog year 2015 in review | Gas station without pumps — 2015 December 31 @ 17:07 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: