not true. there are many different kinds. student loans are based on the student. parent loans are based on the parent's in income. both programs are "need" based. the individual school gets to decide what the level of "need" is.

And that is the problem! I think it should be put on the kid going to school to carry the burden of the loan, regardless of my income. My income should have nothing to do with the loan the kid can get to go to college.

Students who do not get any free federal or state grants are almost always still eligible for a Federal Stafford loan which is in the student's name. Of course, the Expected Family Contribution is tied to parental income if the student does not meet the qualifications for independent status, but not meeting unmet need with free grants leaves the student borrowing power. After that, there are federally backed parent PLUS loans, which are still a better deal than alternative loans.

Of course, there are limits to what a student may borrow...stafford aggregate limit is around 45 grand, annual limits up to 7500 for a dependent student, which i know won't cover an expensive college.
More info here, and feel free to PM me if I can help with anything.

Also, it is worthy to note that it is the position of the Department of Education that the parent/family is ultimately responsible for the education of the child.[/I just got back from state conference] ;)


I agree...those are luxuries.

My oldest daughter was only eligible for $1200 in Stafford loans the first year. Let me do the math... $22,000 - 1,200 = $20,800.... Hmmm how is she suppose to pay the rest??? This is not some private school, it is at a large state school.

No, the parents have to get the PlUS loan. That is BS, it is her education they should be her loans. Not only that the loans are not even at the low interest rate that education loans should be at, they are at 5, 6, 7 %, more BS. When I went to school I got loans every year to pay for my school over a 30 year period at 2%.

My parents made great sacrifices to make sure I, and my 2 brothers, went to college. I did what I could with work-study, loans, and summer jobs. They felt it was their responsibility. They didn't go on fancy trips and my mom wore crappy clothes. She learned to make a million meals out of ground beef. There was no RV to sell, no cadirracs or motorbikes...just a notion that their children would get the chance they never had one way or another.

my parents were unable to help me pay for college. they did raise me to the age of 18 and teach me how to work for things i thought were a priority.

post-secondary education is a privilege, not a right. it requires sacrifice and determination.

I understand all that, before everyone slays me. What I have said was "to the best of their ability" and that kids need to do their part as well. I was not born with a silver spoon, believe me. But, I do believe that some parents could realize when their bouncing baby cutie-pie comes into this world that in this day and age you won't get far without a college education, and should look forward to that, sacrificing and saving along the way as well.

There are many many many many many (did I say many?) Dept policies I don't agree with, and commisserate with many folks (for instance I don't agree with "until the age of 24" so much) but when I see parents who make over 100 grand a year and gripe about not getting help I wonder if they should consider selling their speedboat or the lake house, or one of the three nice cars, for the future of their offspring.

Many of the policies are, really, an index, which doesn't always bode fairly for everyone...but are designed to assist the greatest number. Not perfect, not by a long shot.

i'm on board with you cousin. if you make significant income - and i think $100K annually qualifies a personal decision needs to be made. The parents need to decide if paying for the kid's schooling is an obligation they want to take upon themselves or not. if they don't want to pay for the schooling then by all means - buy the bigger boat. if school is the priority - then fire up the savings or 529 plan.

but when it comes down to it, i've got problems with parents trying to take on debt to pay for their kid's college degree. unless the kid is going to medical or law school if they come out of college with $50K or more in student loans they are pretty fucked. if the loans are in the parents' names then they are both fucked. to go deep into hock just to get a B.A. makes NO sense. work part time or full time if necessary - graduate in 5 or 6 years instead of 3 or 4. decide what you want to be BEFORE you start school instead of changing majors 5 times.

Good points. I, personally, try to steer people away from borrowing if at all possible.

I have not always made good choices, either. I see it from both sides of the fence. The old "if I could do it over again..." :)

But I am forever indebted to my parents for wanting me to have better, to believe in the education they never got, for giving up things while we were growing up.

T. Rowe Price has an interesting calculator for what expected college costs will be when your kids reach college age. They take current costs for each school, and you get to choose what you expect inflation to be.

According to their calculator with an assumed 7% inflation rate (who knows if that's a correct assumption?) our in-state university will cost $119,000 for my daughter. If she gets into MIT (just picking at random here) it will cost $345,000. This is for all four years. Sending both my kids to college will cost between $200K and $800K depending on the school and inflation between now and then. Ugh.

That sounds like a calculation people should make before deciding to have kids.

Other helpful calculators here.

Small nitpick... if she attends MIT it will be that much. I got into every college I applied to, but did not qualify for any meaningful financial aid, and ultimately my parents and I decided that getting my undergrad degree from a high-quality state school was a better deal. (At the time I admit I was a teensy bit bitter, but having since seen where all my friends and their various degrees actually ended up, I have realized they were right.)

The only point I would like to add is that who is to say how much money a person or family makes is enough to make the parents take on all the debt, where the child, who is about to go to school, has no chance in hell of getting loans in their own name. The ability of a child to get a loan, or any other need, is based on parents income. I have no problem contributing, but I want her to take on the debt in her own name. What I make should not be a factor in the personal decision that we make as a family or that the child makes on her own to take on the debt. The simple number of dollar amount in income is not a measure of one persons financial solvency.

income has everything to do with loan approval. IMO it would be flat out wrong to approve kids for large student loans in their own names when there is no evidence supporting their ability to repay the loan. that is why the amount the individual student is able to borrow is relatively small - so that financial ruin isn't guaranteed shortly after graduation.

the parent's name is used for the loan because they are supposed to have to the personal discipline to decide whether it is an amount they can repay or not.

the formulas to decide who get's how much are pretty crappy, but limits have to be set somehow - the pool of money for student loans is not unlimited. there is a finite amount funded for the programs that is passed on to each school. it is up to the school to decide what their guidelines are. at least that was true the last time i looked into it a few years ago.

I'm not saying that it is fair and youdon't have the right to grumble, just trying to point out that there is a certain logic to the program.