Anyone knows about the employment rate of GSD, GSAPP and YSOA's M.Arch students?... I just met a yale m.arch graduate lives in his 40's but still didn't pay off his loan... pretty shocked...
Percentage of borrowers aged 40 or older is 31.9% and they are also carrying 31.9% of the total $870 billion in student loan debt.
" The average outstanding student loan balance per borrower is $23,300. Again, there is substantial heterogeneity in balances of individual borrowers. The median balance of $12,800 is roughly half the average level, which indicates that a small fraction of people have balances significantly higher than the median."
I wouldn't be surprised of that small fraction of people with "balances significantly higher than the median" included a healthy dose of architects with Ivy league degrees (in addition to the obvious culprits such as law & med school grads).
I'm not sure if this is representative of GSD but Harvard's employment-after-graduation rate is about 85% full-time employment within 6 months of graduating.
The problem with these sorts of surveys is that they're pretty flawed— the only way to adequately survey is to have access to Harvard's student records to contact pretty sizable sample of Harvard's student population. If you were to conduct a volunteer survey, you'll always get an issue of motivation for taking the survey on opposite ends— those who have extremely positive and extremely negative views are the only ones who will generally put for the effort of being surveyed.
The issue isn't employment rate it's salary level. Really hard to live an upper-middle class lifestyle including large student loans on an architects salary. I know of a couple people in that person's position, including some former professors.
On employment rate, I did an informal personal investigation with a couple schools. (Yale, MIT, WashU) because through various (legal) ways I had a copy of their previous year's student list. Looked many of them up on LinkedIn. MIT and Yale looked pretty good, WashU did a little less well but still solid considering the economy. At all schools the majority of them are working at firms. I'd imagine GSD is better than all 3.
It takes 10 years to pay off a loan using one of the standard payment plans or 30-35 with the consolidated payment plans. I'm sure anyone graduating from an ivy in their late 20's is going to have debt into their 40's unless they can live frugally enough to make the standard payment.
I know no one likes to think about these things, but try to estimate your debt at the end of the program and then calculate the minimum payments. If you are paying for 30k in tuition a year on loans alone, you won't be able to make the standard monthly payment and make rent at the same time immediately after graduation. Trust me on that one.
On the bright side, anyone in school right now doesn't have to pay more than 20% of their monthly income on a consolidated loan payment, but if you are on that payment plan for more than a year or two don't expect to be debt free for a very long time, so i'm not sure that could really be considered much of a bright side. That just assures that you won't starve to death on the street corner.
It's just money down a black hole, that unless you are rich and from a privileged class, it's just a part of life.
With IBR, you make a minimum monthly payment and then any remaining balance is forgiven after 25 years. If architects make the kind of money everyone here seems to suggest (not much) then what's some odd $300 down the rabbit hole really going to hurt? That is affordable even on the most meager of salaries. And so what? Only rich people should go to Ivys? That only furthers the elitism and entitlement of it all.
Stick with federal loans and people will be fine. The budget for GSD is 60K a year, and you can borrow up to the max budget with federal loans. It's the private ones that will screw you over in the end, with no protection on how much you're required to pay. Stay within budget and you're fine. GSD is entirely generous anyway, so no one should have to borrow that much anyway. It's not GSAPP.
There's a lot of sensationalism floating around. Just keep your budget in order, don't party every night, don't go out every night, etc., and people will be fine.
I don't feel that people accentuate the difference between federal loans and private loans enough. The first really is not a huge deal, even if you have you to take out alot. There is forgiveness over the long hall, and they will work with you if you're out of a job. For the second, they will leave you on the street to fucking die and then go after your family if they've cosigned. Everyone always says "Don't take out loans" or avoid debt at all cost, they should also point to this difference more often since debt is a reality for the vast majority of people entering grad school.
After having made three consecutive years of loan payments, I can honestly say i feel comfortable going to school and not working for a semesters or if I can take out all fed loans, but I would work another job and sale everything I could to avoid taking out another private loan.
Apr 24, 12 12:38 pm ·
·
Although there are differences between student loans from the federal government and the private sector (and clearly federal loans are better for the borrower), I would be cautious about overestimating the generosity of the feds. In our smaller-is-better/outsource-everything world of governance there is not as much difference as there used to be.
"With $67 billion of student loans in default, the Education Department is turning to an army of private debt-collection companies to put the squeeze on borrowers."
"The debt collectors made out well, too. Based on a review of government contracts and Education Department data, the private companies -- working directly for the government and through state agencies -- received commissions of about $1 billion in the year through September."
“Student-loan debt collectors have power that would make a mobster envious,” Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren..."
"Under Education Department contracts, collection companies “rehabilitate” a defaulted loan by getting a borrower to make nine payments in 10 months. If they succeed, they reap a jackpot: a commission equal to as much as 16 percent of the entire loan amount, or $3,200 on a $20,000 loan.
Incentive Pressure
These companies receive that fee only if borrowers make a minimum payment of 0.75 percent to 1.25 percent of the loan each month, depending on its size. For example, a $20,000 loan would require payments of about $200 a month. If the payment falls below that figure, the collector receives an administrative fee of $150."
"The IRS let Campos, the Boston student-loan debtor, set up a payment plan he could afford when he fell behind on his taxes, he said.
“The IRS was better,” Campos said. “They bent over backwards to help you.”
"Illinois resident Lisa Lindsay had received the medical bill in error and was told she did not have to pay up.
However, the bill was turned over to a collection agency and state troopers arrived at her home and took her away in handcuffs.
The Illinois teaching assistant eventually had to pay more than $600 to escape prison, as legal fees were added to the bill."
"Debt collectors have become so aggressive claim some that poor people who are behind on payments of as little as $25 a month are being sent to jail.
Even though debtor's prisons have been illegal since 1833, lenders are being accused of exploiting legal loopholes to have their borrowers found and sent to jail until they pay up.
Acting within the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, rather for failing to arrive to court hearings thereby falling foul of contempt of court laws."
"A 2010 report by the American Civil Liberties Union that examined five states - Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington -- discovered that people were being imprisoned at 'increasingly alarming rates' through legal debts.
Some of the examples cited included a woman who arrested four individual times for failure to pay $251 in fines and costs related to a fourth-degree misdemeanor conviction.
Another example that the ACLU used was of a mentally ill juvenile imprisoned by a judge for a conviction for stealing school supplies.
'The sad truth is that debtors' prisons are flourishing today, more than two decades after the Supreme Court prohibited imprisoning those who are too poor to pay their legal debts,' said the ACLU."
'In this era of shrinking budgets, state and local governments have turned aggressively to using the threat and reality of imprisonment to squeeze revenue out of the poorest defendants who appear in their courts.'"
What's really fucked up is that the breast cancer survivor didn't owe anything. The original bill was a mistake but she was still tossed in the slammer and needed to spend $600 to clear her name. Don't think it couldn't happen to you.
Land of the free, yo!
Apr 25, 12 2:26 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Employment rate of GSD
Anyone knows about the employment rate of GSD, GSAPP and YSOA's M.Arch students?... I just met a yale m.arch graduate lives in his 40's but still didn't pay off his loan... pretty shocked...
Pretty schocking? More like pretty normal.
Some numbers via zerohedge.com:
Percentage of borrowers aged 40 or older is 31.9% and they are also carrying 31.9% of the total $870 billion in student loan debt.
" The average outstanding student loan balance per borrower is $23,300. Again, there is substantial heterogeneity in balances of individual borrowers. The median balance of $12,800 is roughly half the average level, which indicates that a small fraction of people have balances significantly higher than the median."
I wouldn't be surprised of that small fraction of people with "balances significantly higher than the median" included a healthy dose of architects with Ivy league degrees (in addition to the obvious culprits such as law & med school grads).
Yo.
I'm not sure if this is representative of GSD but Harvard's employment-after-graduation rate is about 85% full-time employment within 6 months of graduating.
The problem with these sorts of surveys is that they're pretty flawed— the only way to adequately survey is to have access to Harvard's student records to contact pretty sizable sample of Harvard's student population. If you were to conduct a volunteer survey, you'll always get an issue of motivation for taking the survey on opposite ends— those who have extremely positive and extremely negative views are the only ones who will generally put for the effort of being surveyed.
The issue isn't employment rate it's salary level. Really hard to live an upper-middle class lifestyle including large student loans on an architects salary. I know of a couple people in that person's position, including some former professors.
On employment rate, I did an informal personal investigation with a couple schools. (Yale, MIT, WashU) because through various (legal) ways I had a copy of their previous year's student list. Looked many of them up on LinkedIn. MIT and Yale looked pretty good, WashU did a little less well but still solid considering the economy. At all schools the majority of them are working at firms. I'd imagine GSD is better than all 3.
Shocked that loans are payed off in their 40's?! I'd be shocked if many M.Arch grads didn't die with debt.
It takes 10 years to pay off a loan using one of the standard payment plans or 30-35 with the consolidated payment plans. I'm sure anyone graduating from an ivy in their late 20's is going to have debt into their 40's unless they can live frugally enough to make the standard payment.
I know no one likes to think about these things, but try to estimate your debt at the end of the program and then calculate the minimum payments. If you are paying for 30k in tuition a year on loans alone, you won't be able to make the standard monthly payment and make rent at the same time immediately after graduation. Trust me on that one.
On the bright side, anyone in school right now doesn't have to pay more than 20% of their monthly income on a consolidated loan payment, but if you are on that payment plan for more than a year or two don't expect to be debt free for a very long time, so i'm not sure that could really be considered much of a bright side. That just assures that you won't starve to death on the street corner.
ibr 25 yr max
I do know that 12% of Harvard business school graduates default on their student loans.
It's just money down a black hole, that unless you are rich and from a privileged class, it's just a part of life.
With IBR, you make a minimum monthly payment and then any remaining balance is forgiven after 25 years. If architects make the kind of money everyone here seems to suggest (not much) then what's some odd $300 down the rabbit hole really going to hurt? That is affordable even on the most meager of salaries. And so what? Only rich people should go to Ivys? That only furthers the elitism and entitlement of it all.
Stick with federal loans and people will be fine. The budget for GSD is 60K a year, and you can borrow up to the max budget with federal loans. It's the private ones that will screw you over in the end, with no protection on how much you're required to pay. Stay within budget and you're fine. GSD is entirely generous anyway, so no one should have to borrow that much anyway. It's not GSAPP.
There's a lot of sensationalism floating around. Just keep your budget in order, don't party every night, don't go out every night, etc., and people will be fine.
Agree with the above.
I don't feel that people accentuate the difference between federal loans and private loans enough. The first really is not a huge deal, even if you have you to take out alot. There is forgiveness over the long hall, and they will work with you if you're out of a job. For the second, they will leave you on the street to fucking die and then go after your family if they've cosigned. Everyone always says "Don't take out loans" or avoid debt at all cost, they should also point to this difference more often since debt is a reality for the vast majority of people entering grad school.
After having made three consecutive years of loan payments, I can honestly say i feel comfortable going to school and not working for a semesters or if I can take out all fed loans, but I would work another job and sale everything I could to avoid taking out another private loan.
Although there are differences between student loans from the federal government and the private sector (and clearly federal loans are better for the borrower), I would be cautious about overestimating the generosity of the feds. In our smaller-is-better/outsource-everything world of governance there is not as much difference as there used to be.
Some highlights from a recent Bloomberg article on the state of Federal student debt collection:
"With $67 billion of student loans in default, the Education Department is turning to an army of private debt-collection companies to put the squeeze on borrowers."
"The debt collectors made out well, too. Based on a review of government contracts and Education Department data, the private companies -- working directly for the government and through state agencies -- received commissions of about $1 billion in the year through September."
“Student-loan debt collectors have power that would make a mobster envious,” Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren..."
"Under Education Department contracts, collection companies “rehabilitate” a defaulted loan by getting a borrower to make nine payments in 10 months. If they succeed, they reap a jackpot: a commission equal to as much as 16 percent of the entire loan amount, or $3,200 on a $20,000 loan.
Incentive Pressure
These companies receive that fee only if borrowers make a minimum payment of 0.75 percent to 1.25 percent of the loan each month, depending on its size. For example, a $20,000 loan would require payments of about $200 a month. If the payment falls below that figure, the collector receives an administrative fee of $150."
"The IRS let Campos, the Boston student-loan debtor, set up a payment plan he could afford when he fell behind on his taxes, he said.
“The IRS was better,” Campos said. “They bent over backwards to help you.”
Don't forget that even if the Federal government offers loan forgiveness, there still might be a tax liability involved.
With laws/rules always subject to change (maybe for the better but maybe not), the old carved in stone advice remains potent:
(image via forexstreet.net)
Yo!
Also, more info on the growing resurgence of debtors' prisons via the Daily Mail, Breast cancer survivor handcuffed and thrown in jail over a mistaken $280 medical bill as 'debtor's prisons' return to the U.S
Some excerpts:
"Illinois resident Lisa Lindsay had received the medical bill in error and was told she did not have to pay up.
However, the bill was turned over to a collection agency and state troopers arrived at her home and took her away in handcuffs.
The Illinois teaching assistant eventually had to pay more than $600 to escape prison, as legal fees were added to the bill."
"Debt collectors have become so aggressive claim some that poor people who are behind on payments of as little as $25 a month are being sent to jail.
Even though debtor's prisons have been illegal since 1833, lenders are being accused of exploiting legal loopholes to have their borrowers found and sent to jail until they pay up.
Acting within the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, rather for failing to arrive to court hearings thereby falling foul of contempt of court laws."
"A 2010 report by the American Civil Liberties Union that examined five states - Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington -- discovered that people were being imprisoned at 'increasingly alarming rates' through legal debts.
Some of the examples cited included a woman who arrested four individual times for failure to pay $251 in fines and costs related to a fourth-degree misdemeanor conviction.
Another example that the ACLU used was of a mentally ill juvenile imprisoned by a judge for a conviction for stealing school supplies.
'The sad truth is that debtors' prisons are flourishing today, more than two decades after the Supreme Court prohibited imprisoning those who are too poor to pay their legal debts,' said the ACLU."
'In this era of shrinking budgets, state and local governments have turned aggressively to using the threat and reality of imprisonment to squeeze revenue out of the poorest defendants who appear in their courts.'"
What's really fucked up is that the breast cancer survivor didn't owe anything. The original bill was a mistake but she was still tossed in the slammer and needed to spend $600 to clear her name. Don't think it couldn't happen to you.
Land of the free, yo!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.