So argues Jeffrey Sims in the
Chronicle of Higher Ed today (unfortunately, the article's behind a paywall.)
So, too, argue the folks at
Screw College Loans, who are trying to raise private money for the cause.
Here's the case: Students who made the decision three or four years ago to borrow $20,000+, including a rising proportion of private student loans, for college were borrowing under artificially free-flowing lending conditions. Loans were marketed aggressively,
directly to students (pdf) , just like mortgages. There was a booming secondary market in student loans, which were bundled into
securities just like mortgages; and loan consolidation was over marketed too, as aggressively as refinancing/home equity loans.
The federal government encouraged all of this by providing capital and subsidies to the lenders who did it in the name of increasing access to college. The sense of an irresponsible free-for-all was bolstered by the fact that Sallie Mae--the student loan equivalent to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--actually became a completely private corporation in 2004 in order to expand even more into private student loans and collections.
Above all, students and families assumed that the return on the degree would continue to increase. The experts all said so. The College Board releases a report titled
"Education Pays" every year. Again, just like housing prices.
However, the median income of households headed by a person with a bachelor's degree has actually dropped slightly, in constant dollars, since 2000.
2007 $77,605
2006 78,013
2005 76,921
2004 75,101
2003 84,864
2002 79,705
2001 78,661
2000 80,208 Source: Census Bureau
So, students borrowed too much money, on expectations of high return that were not met by reality.
Does this add up to exploitation worthy of a bailout?