5 ms·

Did this catch the attention of anyone else? “I am over $100,000 in student loan debt right now,” said Megan Parker, who earns $37,000 as the firm’s receptioni

Did this catch the attention of anyone else? “I am over $100,000 in student loan debt right now,” said Megan Parker, who earns $37,000 as the firm’s receptionist. She graduated from the Art Institute of Atlanta in 2011 with a degree in fashion and retail management, and spent months waiting on “bridezillas” at a couture boutique, among other stores, while churning out office-job applications. ----- Something is very, very wrong with the student loan program in the USA.

Evbn 14y ago
Isn't that the cliché of stories like this?
montecarl 14y ago
Something is wrong with people that that they choose to go to schools that cost $100,000 to get degrees in fashion and/or retail management.
- suresk 14y ago
  Maybe. But I think the school system (K-12 and higher education) are somewhat culpable here. Starting fairly early, we teach students that there are a bunch of hoops they need to jump through in order to get a good job later in life. For an 18 year old, it is easy to see college as just another (and hopefully last) hoop to jump through. Colleges (and the for-profit schools are exceptionally bad here) show them a rosy outlook for whatever major they are interested in - I guarantee you every person who is up to their eyeballs in debt got shown something saying "x% of graduates from the <insert not very marketable degree> program were employed 6 months after graduation with average salary of $y" based on questionable information, did the math, and thought it was a reasonable choice. I don't think high school students are given enough information and enough reality to fully understand the ramifications of their college choices. I absolutely made some bad choices when picking my major in college, but it took me quite a while to really figure that out - thankfully, I at least didn't get a bunch of debt to go along with it.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I disagree that telling kids that there are hoops to jump through is the problem. There are hoops to jump through. The problem is telling kids to major in what they're interested in. The "follow your bliss" crap instead of "follow a paycheck."
    - chii 14y ago
      Theres got to be a fine balance - you have to both find something you enjoy, and yet something that pays the bills. Unfortuantely that is sort of rare - the only flexible part in all of this is your interests. Can you change your own interests to fit reality?
- uvdiv 14y ago
  Something is wrong with employers who only hire university graduates, creating a market for receptionists with $100,000 art degrees.
- phaus 14y ago
  Art schools are notoriously expensive and the degrees are notoriously worthless. I draw as a hobby, and at one point in my life I was thinking about going to art school. I was a member of a HN like community for artists, and the advice I got was to get the cheapest liberal arts degree I could find if I was serious about being an artist, and then draw constantly on my own, go to free/cheap workshops, take on small contracts, etc. Almost every single person in that community regretted spending the money for an actual art degree. It's really just common sense, in most industries, having a degree is either looked at as a huge bonus, or a flat-out requirement. As an artist, you would have an extremely hard time finding a client / employer who cares if you even graduated from high school or learned to tie your shoes, as long as they like what's in your portfolio. That being said, anything remotely related to art is going to be highly competitive, because no one really retires from being an artist, and there lots of people who have 30+ years of experience.
- arjunnarayan 14y ago
  Something is really wrong with a regime that _lends_ an 18 year old $100,000 for an art degree. This is only possible because the lender is guaranteed paybacks no matter what (because the borrower cannot default). If we let borrowers default on loans under certain criteria (say, their annual income was below a certain threshold), then lenders would have to actually vet the students degrees --- and then we might have a sane system where you're denied a student loan if you're going to major in underwater basket weaving, but approved if you major in engineering.
  - nestlequ1k 14y ago
    But can you imagine this world? Where you are sending your transcripts to the bank, proving to them that not only will you finish college, but be able to get a job afterwards. And every month in college having to send your grades to them so they can be sure you're still a good investment. It makes sense to me but... can you imagine the feelings that would be hurt by this?
    - numo16 14y ago
      Maybe feelings need to be hurt...A lot of people expect things to just be handed to them these days, especially with the "everybody is a winner" culture that is pushed in the elementary schools currently.
    - dontstealmyname 14y ago
      Wouldn't the simpler system be if you fail a unit twice You've got to find the money yourself to pay for that unit. Just hook the college results system up to the load provider and let their system keep track of it that way. This is more or less how the government funding works in Australia, but saying that the costs of higher education are a lot lower.
  - nazgulnarsil 14y ago
    Wringing every ounce of income out of someone who is otherwise a waste of space seems like a feature not a bug. I just laugh at moral outrage over stupid white americans getting "screwed." Especially when it's entirely voluntary.
- spamizbad 14y ago
  The rhetoric I heard from both my parents, my teachers, and my guidance consoler during my junior and senior year in high school (2000-2001) was "Employers want a college degree. It doesn't matter what degree you get, unless you want to do STEM, so pick something that interests you. College really just signals to an employer that you 'know how to learn.'" The first part is mostly true: employers want a college degree. The second part is also true: STEM (with the exception of software development) tends to prefer people with specific degrees. The third part, however, is total bullshit, and it got A LOT of people into a A LOT of debt. The reality is employers are incredibly picky not just over a candidate's degree, but these days they're much less willing to invest in employee training. They want candidates who can show up and do the job on day 1. My hunch is that lot of the college advice was doled out to students based upon the Baby Boomer's understanding of the world: College degrees are a hot item employers want, and they (usually) don't care what it's in! The employer will train you at your job and you just need the necessary reading, writing, and math skills. This probably was the case in the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s but by the 90s things had changed. (As an aside- I ended up dropping out of college after 1.5 years and avoided debt. Opportunity knocked and probably saved me from tons of debt).
reaganing 14y ago
I really don't understand how people get sucked into these for-profit (scam) schools. Or why the federal government provides student loans for students going to such places. Presuming Ms. Parker lived in Georgia, in-state tuition at most public universities there would've cost her much less, and provided a better education. (and that's not including things like Georgia's Hope scholarship program)
- dubfan 14y ago
  The schools have excellent marketing campaigns. Their TV commercials run all day, with emphasis on the daytime market. They show up to high school college fairs with slick marketing material and huge promises of careers that appeal to teenagers. Plus, they make signing up for loans as streamlined and easy as possible.
- aspensmonster 14y ago
  In-state tuition is still rising well ahead of the means for most to pay for it out of pocket. It's not six figures by any means, but I envy the stories of generations past that managed to live at home, work part time year round or full time in the summer, and come out four years later more or less unscathed. It's frustrating to watch prices rise while state funds stay constant or decrease.
  - jholman 14y ago
    Hmn, arithmetic reality check. Georgia State, $11k per year in-state. Hmn, my alma mater is still charging about half that, for any Canadian student. Full time minimum-wage work for the summer? $7.25/h (GA min wage) * 40h/w * 17 weeks = $5k income (basically untaxed). So you're in debt for $24k over your 4-year degree. That's a lot more than I would have guessed. Guess the student had better figure out something valuable to do (more valuable than minimum wage).
niggler 14y ago
The student loan bubble is nearing a tipping point. As of a few years ago, the total outstanding student loan obligations in the US exceeded the credit card obligations. I wouldn't be surprised to see a very hard correction very soon (or a massive bailout). At that point, I expect many of the not-so-stellar private colleges (like the Art Institutes) that thrived on easy student loans to shut down. Disclosure: I've made a significant amount of money last year betting on this by shorting APOL.
- chii 14y ago
  slightly off topic but i don't understand how this betting works - what does shorting a stock mean, and who is "losing" the money in order for you to gain?
dubfan 14y ago
That's a particularly egregious sample. The Art Institute is a for-profit college, the likes of which are infamous for milking student loan money. See also University of Phoenix, ITT, DeVry, and Everest. It's a huge industry in the USA. Frontline of PBS had a good episode about this called College Inc. and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
WillyF 14y ago
I work in the careers space and did a conference call with 20-30 career services professionals from Art Institutes campuses across the country. It became very clear during the call that they were in the difficult position of telling their students that the commercials that told them that the degree would get them a great job weren't quite telling the truth.
strlen 14y ago
"Art Institute of X" where X is not Chicago usually implies a for-profit institution owned by EDMC ("educational management corporation"). Academy of Art (in SF) is quite similar, but perhaps more known regionally: in both cases they seem to provide some kind of legitimate training in commercial art (by itself a respectable discipline), but it's probably fair to say that they draw in students who aren't quite aware of what they've signed up for and the how far they will go into debt. Many students at these schools aren't even interested in art, fashion, or film per se: for some it's the last chance at graduation (some came after transferring through as many as six schools, etc...) I think for-profit universities (and perhaps, lower-tier private law schools) represent the educational bubble very well: in all cases I think they provide legitimate training and can be a value-add to many individuals. Problem is the rate at which they (effectively) sell degrees is much higher than the rate at which the (already limited) market for holders of those degrees grows. This is definitely thanks to the ease of getting student loans.
- rdouble 14y ago
  Academy of Art in SF is an awesome business scam where the owners turn student loans and international student tuition dollars into tax free real estate holdings. "For those keeping track, Academy of Art University now owns 1.93 million square feet of space in 41 properties in San Francisco. This includes 22 academic and office properties and 19 residential buildings. The school owns everything from historic landmarks like the Cannery on Fisherman's Wharf to St. Brigid's Church on Van Ness to prime south financial district buildings like 79 and 180 New Montgomery St." http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/03/academy-of-art-adds-to-real-estate.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201... Google "art academy sf real estate" - there's articles like this going back to 2001.

Evbn 14y ago

Isn't that the cliché of stories like this?

montecarl 14y ago

Something is wrong with people that that they choose to go to schools that cost $100,000 to get degrees in fashion and/or retail management.

suresk 14y ago
Maybe. But I think the school system (K-12 and higher education) are somewhat culpable here. Starting fairly early, we teach students that there are a bunch of hoops they need to jump through in order to get a good job later in life. For an 18 year old, it is easy to see college as just another (and hopefully last) hoop to jump through. Colleges (and the for-profit schools are exceptionally bad here) show them a rosy outlook for whatever major they are interested in - I guarantee you every person who is up to their eyeballs in debt got shown something saying "x% of graduates from the <insert not very marketable degree> program were employed 6 months after graduation with average salary of $y" based on questionable information, did the math, and thought it was a reasonable choice. I don't think high school students are given enough information and enough reality to fully understand the ramifications of their college choices. I absolutely made some bad choices when picking my major in college, but it took me quite a while to really figure that out - thankfully, I at least didn't get a bunch of debt to go along with it.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I disagree that telling kids that there are hoops to jump through is the problem. There are hoops to jump through. The problem is telling kids to major in what they're interested in. The "follow your bliss" crap instead of "follow a paycheck."
  - chii 14y ago
    Theres got to be a fine balance - you have to both find something you enjoy, and yet something that pays the bills. Unfortuantely that is sort of rare - the only flexible part in all of this is your interests. Can you change your own interests to fit reality?
uvdiv 14y ago
Something is wrong with employers who only hire university graduates, creating a market for receptionists with $100,000 art degrees.
phaus 14y ago
Art schools are notoriously expensive and the degrees are notoriously worthless. I draw as a hobby, and at one point in my life I was thinking about going to art school. I was a member of a HN like community for artists, and the advice I got was to get the cheapest liberal arts degree I could find if I was serious about being an artist, and then draw constantly on my own, go to free/cheap workshops, take on small contracts, etc. Almost every single person in that community regretted spending the money for an actual art degree. It's really just common sense, in most industries, having a degree is either looked at as a huge bonus, or a flat-out requirement. As an artist, you would have an extremely hard time finding a client / employer who cares if you even graduated from high school or learned to tie your shoes, as long as they like what's in your portfolio. That being said, anything remotely related to art is going to be highly competitive, because no one really retires from being an artist, and there lots of people who have 30+ years of experience.
arjunnarayan 14y ago
Something is really wrong with a regime that _lends_ an 18 year old $100,000 for an art degree. This is only possible because the lender is guaranteed paybacks no matter what (because the borrower cannot default). If we let borrowers default on loans under certain criteria (say, their annual income was below a certain threshold), then lenders would have to actually vet the students degrees --- and then we might have a sane system where you're denied a student loan if you're going to major in underwater basket weaving, but approved if you major in engineering.
- nestlequ1k 14y ago
  But can you imagine this world? Where you are sending your transcripts to the bank, proving to them that not only will you finish college, but be able to get a job afterwards. And every month in college having to send your grades to them so they can be sure you're still a good investment. It makes sense to me but... can you imagine the feelings that would be hurt by this?
  - numo16 14y ago
    Maybe feelings need to be hurt...A lot of people expect things to just be handed to them these days, especially with the "everybody is a winner" culture that is pushed in the elementary schools currently.
  - dontstealmyname 14y ago
    Wouldn't the simpler system be if you fail a unit twice You've got to find the money yourself to pay for that unit. Just hook the college results system up to the load provider and let their system keep track of it that way. This is more or less how the government funding works in Australia, but saying that the costs of higher education are a lot lower.
- nazgulnarsil 14y ago
  Wringing every ounce of income out of someone who is otherwise a waste of space seems like a feature not a bug. I just laugh at moral outrage over stupid white americans getting "screwed." Especially when it's entirely voluntary.
spamizbad 14y ago
The rhetoric I heard from both my parents, my teachers, and my guidance consoler during my junior and senior year in high school (2000-2001) was "Employers want a college degree. It doesn't matter what degree you get, unless you want to do STEM, so pick something that interests you. College really just signals to an employer that you 'know how to learn.'" The first part is mostly true: employers want a college degree. The second part is also true: STEM (with the exception of software development) tends to prefer people with specific degrees. The third part, however, is total bullshit, and it got A LOT of people into a A LOT of debt. The reality is employers are incredibly picky not just over a candidate's degree, but these days they're much less willing to invest in employee training. They want candidates who can show up and do the job on day 1. My hunch is that lot of the college advice was doled out to students based upon the Baby Boomer's understanding of the world: College degrees are a hot item employers want, and they (usually) don't care what it's in! The employer will train you at your job and you just need the necessary reading, writing, and math skills. This probably was the case in the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s but by the 90s things had changed. (As an aside- I ended up dropping out of college after 1.5 years and avoided debt. Opportunity knocked and probably saved me from tons of debt).

reaganing 14y ago

I really don't understand how people get sucked into these for-profit (scam) schools. Or why the federal government provides student loans for students going to such places. Presuming Ms. Parker lived in Georgia, in-state tuition at most public universities there would've cost her much less, and provided a better education. (and that's not including things like Georgia's Hope scholarship program)

dubfan 14y ago
The schools have excellent marketing campaigns. Their TV commercials run all day, with emphasis on the daytime market. They show up to high school college fairs with slick marketing material and huge promises of careers that appeal to teenagers. Plus, they make signing up for loans as streamlined and easy as possible.
aspensmonster 14y ago
In-state tuition is still rising well ahead of the means for most to pay for it out of pocket. It's not six figures by any means, but I envy the stories of generations past that managed to live at home, work part time year round or full time in the summer, and come out four years later more or less unscathed. It's frustrating to watch prices rise while state funds stay constant or decrease.
- jholman 14y ago
  Hmn, arithmetic reality check. Georgia State, $11k per year in-state. Hmn, my alma mater is still charging about half that, for any Canadian student. Full time minimum-wage work for the summer? $7.25/h (GA min wage) * 40h/w * 17 weeks = $5k income (basically untaxed). So you're in debt for $24k over your 4-year degree. That's a lot more than I would have guessed. Guess the student had better figure out something valuable to do (more valuable than minimum wage).

niggler 14y ago

The student loan bubble is nearing a tipping point. As of a few years ago, the total outstanding student loan obligations in the US exceeded the credit card obligations. I wouldn't be surprised to see a very hard correction very soon (or a massive bailout). At that point, I expect many of the not-so-stellar private colleges (like the Art Institutes) that thrived on easy student loans to shut down. Disclosure: I've made a significant amount of money last year betting on this by shorting APOL.

chii 14y ago
slightly off topic but i don't understand how this betting works - what does shorting a stock mean, and who is "losing" the money in order for you to gain?

dubfan 14y ago

That's a particularly egregious sample. The Art Institute is a for-profit college, the likes of which are infamous for milking student loan money. See also University of Phoenix, ITT, DeVry, and Everest. It's a huge industry in the USA. Frontline of PBS had a good episode about this called College Inc. and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.

WillyF 14y ago

I work in the careers space and did a conference call with 20-30 career services professionals from Art Institutes campuses across the country. It became very clear during the call that they were in the difficult position of telling their students that the commercials that told them that the degree would get them a great job weren't quite telling the truth.

strlen 14y ago

"Art Institute of X" where X is not Chicago usually implies a for-profit institution owned by EDMC ("educational management corporation"). Academy of Art (in SF) is quite similar, but perhaps more known regionally: in both cases they seem to provide some kind of legitimate training in commercial art (by itself a respectable discipline), but it's probably fair to say that they draw in students who aren't quite aware of what they've signed up for and the how far they will go into debt. Many students at these schools aren't even interested in art, fashion, or film per se: for some it's the last chance at graduation (some came after transferring through as many as six schools, etc...) I think for-profit universities (and perhaps, lower-tier private law schools) represent the educational bubble very well: in all cases I think they provide legitimate training and can be a value-add to many individuals. Problem is the rate at which they (effectively) sell degrees is much higher than the rate at which the (already limited) market for holders of those degrees grows. This is definitely thanks to the ease of getting student loans.

rdouble 14y ago
Academy of Art in SF is an awesome business scam where the owners turn student loans and international student tuition dollars into tax free real estate holdings. "For those keeping track, Academy of Art University now owns 1.93 million square feet of space in 41 properties in San Francisco. This includes 22 academic and office properties and 19 residential buildings. The school owns everything from historic landmarks like the Cannery on Fisherman's Wharf to St. Brigid's Church on Van Ness to prime south financial district buildings like 79 and 180 New Montgomery St." http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/03/academy-of-art-adds-to-real-estate.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201... Google "art academy sf real estate" - there's articles like this going back to 2001.