Changes are coming for IBR/PSLF?

[BMBiology]

"Our findings show that the repayment terms for New IBR and PSLF are unlikely to cause many graduate and professional students to fully repay their loans—even if they earn a competitive salary in their chosen careers or a salary that places them among upper-income Americans. This will likely provide an incentive for graduate and professional students to borrow more rather than less, particularly for some professions. It should also make graduate students less sensitive to the price of a graduate or professional degree, allowing institutions to charge higher tuitions, especially for certain programs like healthcare, social work, education, and government, where borrowers would go on to qualify for PSLF.

Policymakers should consider changes to New IBR and PSLF that place greater limits on the benefits and the types of jobs that qualify borrowers for loan forgiveness. If they do not make such changes, the programs are likely to have a very large impact on the graduate education marketplace and borrowing behavior in the coming years as students and schools begin to understand and use these programs. That impact will likely raise alarm among lawmakers and the public and could threaten the viability of PSLF or New IBR"

http://www.newamerica.org/downloads/ZeroMarginalCost_140910_DelisleHolt.pdf

My analysis: working professionals will be targeted, as well as high income earners. Why? because they have the most debt and that is where the money is. I am certain there will be changes but the big question - will the change be retroactive? My guess? I don't think it will be. I don't think any politician can justify it.

P.S. I want to thank a friend for sending me this article. Obviously he knows I would post it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BMBiology]

The tsunami is coming: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102173920

24% of millennials expect student debt forgiveness

"But their millennial optimism might not be too far off base, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog agency set up after the financial crisis. It estimates that 25 percent of the U.S. workforce is employed by a public service employer and "many may be eligible for existing student loan repayment benefits, including Public Service Loan Forgiveness," according to the CFPB website."

Wonder what the public will think? Just read the comments!

 

[TheTao]

Well duh! Just another way people in power are trying to guarantee that a certain segment of the population STAYS lower middle class/lower class financially for LIFE!!

 

[BMBiology]

^^ if it wasn't for the easy access to student loans, a lot of these subpar students wouldn't have been accepted in the first place.

Admissions to pharmacy schools used to be competitive. Now all you need is a 2.7 GPA and a student loan check from the government.

No way am I going to pay more taxes because you can't pay off your loans. No sympathy from me.

 

[TheTao]

^^^ I can't recall Pharmacy school EVER bring particularly competitive given that many matriculants are med school rejects.

If you want to place blame on someone, why don't you blame the greedy SOBs that allow tuition and fees to get increasingly higher EVER year for no good reason.

You appear to be blaming the "have nots" for wanting a better life by also assuming that they're the ones who have no intention to repay their loans back. Just as the rich have never paid their fare share of taxes, it's the folks who CAN pay ALL their loans back that are looking for gov't handouts/loan forgiveness.

 

[confettiflyer]

The New America paper is worth the read...definitely the most comprehensive analysis of income driven repayment + PSLF that pertains to pharmacists and other professionals that exists today (excluding SDN chatter, of course).

The footnotes are interesting too.

The problem with retroactive clawing back is that a) there's no precedence for it and b) theres an ethical argument of government promoting repayment plans that often don't cover the interest, then last minute pulling back of the very reason people went on those plans in the first place (PSLF).

That said, I leave you with these tidbits: a) Republicans historically help the wealthy, b) a Republican signed IBR/PSLF into law, c) a Republican co-sponsored a bill with a democrat ending PSLF without retroactivity, d) IDR plans and forgiveness are not appropriation items subject to budget "theatrics."

 

[BMBiology]

^^ some of my classmates are the smartest people I know. They could have done anything and they would have been successful. 1400 applied for 180 seats. This number increased to 1700 a couple of years later. That is how competitive it was.

I blame on the easy access of student loan as the source of the problem. Some people are just greedy. There is nothing you can do that would change their nature. Does it make it right? Of course not but if you limit student loans, you would also limit their greed. It is that simple.

You want a better life for you and your family? Work your butt off and be the best at what you do. Don't expect anyone to take care of you. Don't blame others for your shortcoming. It is a competitive world. If you don't make it then tough luck.

The rich? The top 10% pays 70% of the federal income taxes while almost 50% pays little or nothing at all. And guess what? The vast majority of millionaires in this country are SELF MADE.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

 

[type b pharmD]

Bashing free loaders is great fun and propaganda for all republicans ... However, I would like to ask , what tune will they be singing in 15 years when there is no room for their old folk constituents to sell their houses to finance their retirement ?

Without student loan forgiveness, I think there is a pretty big argument to be made that lack of wealth accumulation by millenials will make "the lost decade(s)" look like a lunch break.

Sadly (for them)... The economic future of boomers and even gen x is mostly in millenials hands, because real assets have to have buyers in order to keep the game going. Lets say due to student loans, 20% of people who would normally be buying into the housing market, don't .. you are 65 years old and have no 401k or a 401k worth a few grand (ie vast majority of boomers). .. you go to try to sell your house but nobody is buying .. there went your retirement money, or at least a huge chunk of your spending power.

Before going further into any political or economic analysis of student loans, one should be firmly aware of what an entire generation of non participation in the economy can do to a country. Last summer PAYE was expanded amidst rhetoric and news regarding a slightly lower than expected market participation by millennials. This is only the beginning.

I don't think changes to ibr and paye will be retroactive , but, if they were, I would stop paying altogether and pack up and leave. Only have to make it one more year at my " old" ibr before I can make it onto PAYE .. if a contract I signed in good faith that determines my entire financial future is voided over partisan politics, you can bet your butt I am leaving and sticking taxpayers like BMB with the bill lol.

 

[BMBiology]

The problem with retroactive clawing back is that a) there's no precedence for it and b) theres an ethical argument of government promoting repayment plans that often don't cover the interest, then last minute pulling back of the very reason people went on those plans in the first place (PSLF)

Yes there is no precedence but so is this whole PSLF. The government can easily say there is wide spread abuse (i.e., Georgetown law school hiring their grads for pennies on the dollar while raising tuition and since they will qualify for PSLF, their loans will be forgiven after 10 years) and in order to stay true to the intent of the program, they will cap the forgiveness amount to just 57.5 k (already proposed by Obama).

Everybody will be treated the same. A teacher working in Compton would be treated the same as a nurse working at Cedar in Beverly Hills.

The question I would ask myself - legally speaking, is there anything that would prevent the government from changing the rules in the middle of a game? If there is not then I would be concerned. If it is not changed this year, they still have 10 years to do it. New president. New Congress. It is just a politically smart thing to do.

 

[type b pharmD]

http://askheatherjarvis.com/blog/expanding-pay-as-you-earn-by-negotiated-rulemaking

Just another update I thought I'd pitch in.

 

[BMBiology]

Lets say due to student loans, 20% of people who would normally be buying into the housing market, don't .. you are 65 years old and have no 401k or a 401k worth a few grand (ie vast majority of boomers). .. you go to try to sell your house but nobody is buying .. there went your retirement money, or at least a huge chunk of your spending power.

Yes, giving people money so they can buy a house when they can't even get their finance in order is a smart a idea right? When are people going to get it? The economy has moved away from housing. The stock market has been going up and up while the housing is still "recovering".

I don't think changes to ibr and paye will be retroactive , but, if they were, I would stop paying altogether and pack up and leave. Only have to make it one more year at my " old" ibr before I can make it onto PAYE .. if a contract I signed in good faith that determines my entire financial future is voided over partisan politics, you can bet your butt I am leaving and sticking taxpayers like BMB with the bill lol.

When you signed your student loans, it said nothing about loan forgiveness. As a matter of fact, many people had borrowed student loans way before these forgiveness programs.

Deal~! Give up your citizenship, move out of this country and we will call it even.

 

[BMBiology]

http://askheatherjarvis.com/blog/expanding-pay-as-you-earn-by-negotiated-rulemaking

Yes a blogger, who graduated from a law school and has a boatload of student loan, knows it all. I would rather go with my common sense.

"Heather graduated from Duke University School of Law cum laude owing $125,000 in student loans and facing 30-years’ worth of $1,200 monthly payments. No one ever told Heather that she couldn’t afford to go to Duke, even though, um, she couldn’t. Her mother was a modestly paid executive assistant and her father a mostly unemployed Shakespearean actor."

 

[type b pharmD]

Yes a blogger, who graduated from a law school and has a boatload of student loan, knows it all. I would rather go with my common sense.

"Heather graduated from Duke University School of Law cum laude owing $125,000 in student loans and facing 30-years’ worth of $1,200 monthly payments. No one ever told Heather that she couldn’t afford to go to Duke, even though, um, she couldn’t. Her mother was a modestly paid executive assistant and her father a mostly unemployed Shakespearean actor."

I was just trying to be polite , I didn't think something like this would be at your reading level or palatable to your attention http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-09-03/html/2014-20977.htm

 

[BMBiology]

^^ coming from someone who made a financial blunder

 

[type b pharmD]

Yes, giving people money so they can buy a house when they can't even get their finance in order is a smart a idea right? When are people going to get it? The economy has moved away from housing. The stock market has been going up and up while the housing is still "recovering".
.

Who is going to be there to buy your stocks in 20 years when you and all your elderly friends are trying to sell along with tens of millions of retirees also looking to sell on a daily basis, ie all the institutional investors who have been propping up the market the last few years? Boomers and gen x will also be needing to unload hundreds of billions to trillions of stocks and bonds in the coming decades.. the reason everyone is on a buying spree now is wealthy are taking a quick buck along with the desperate (pension funds) in the face of QE. QE is over. International sovereign wealth funds appetite for US is declining alongside their checkbook strength.

There is no such thing as profit without both a seller and a buyer. Same thing is true for stocks as is for RE . Including the fact that the super rich don't really HAVE to participate in market action unless it is to their benefit.

 

[type b pharmD]

^^ coming from someone who made a financial blunder

We both know how advantageous my play is, only one of us wants to admit it... In fact.. it is a premier example of my previous post's point .. all market transactions are two-way

 

[BMBiology]

Who is going to be there to buy your stocks in 20 years when you and all your elderly friends are trying to sell along with tens of millions of retirees also looking to sell on a daily basis, ie all the institutional investors who have been propping up the market the last few years?

Simple. People who are not tied down by a mortgage. They have more money to spend on the economy and to buy stocks. In addition, I am sure the top 10% of this country owns the majority of stocks and they are doing well..thank you for asking.

Owning a house is no longer cool and is no longer considered as an "American dream" to many. They don't want to be tied down by a house. They want flexibility.

 

[BMBiology]

We both know how advantageous my play is, only one of us wants to admit it... In fact.. it is a premier example of my previous post's point .. all market transactions are two-way

The problem with your plan (declared insolvency so you don't have to pay taxes on the forgiven amount):

(1) you can't put money in retirement funds (i.e., 401 k, roth ira) and therefore, you would forgo all the money from company matches. Have you calculated how much that would cost you? All the tax breaks, company matches...gone!

(2) in addition to your income, you will be paying the government 15% of your non salary income for the next 20-25 years. You made a few thousands from your company stocks? Got to give some to the government. You made some money from renting out your house? Have to give the government a cut. Got a side job? The government wants a cut, too.

So seriously, how is this a smart idea?

 

[type b pharmD]

Simple. People who are not tied down by a mortgage. They have more money to spend on the economy and to buy stocks. In addition, I am sure the top 10% of this country owns the majority of stocks and they are doing well..thank you for asking.

Owning a house is no longer cool and is no longer considered as an "American dream" to many. They don't want to be tied down by a house. They want flexibility.

Yes ... So People who have spent their whole career accumulating stocks, instead of selling them along side you, are going to just let you sell alone ? Or did you mean you'd rather take your retirement money out of the market and park in a building and land when you are ready to retire ? You are talking about a zero sum game, my friend.

The fact that owning a house is no longer "cool" may benefit rental markets as good revenue generators , but it is a shining example of my argument .. the data does not show millennials buying anything other than consumables with their extra money. Are you saying you will sell all your stocks and get into the rental market ? Someone will still have to buy your stocks ! All of this is great on an individual basis right now for a young to middle age investor (or super rich) who is willing to take unconventional risks .. but has absolutely no bearing on the fact that there are going to be millions and millions of sellers looking for buyers around the time you retire. I know I won't be buying any of your assets, even though I'll be in a position about 100x more wealthy than my cohort.. what will they be doing I wonder ? Oh yeah, being "flexible" ... Ie living in a hipster slum drinking PBR and celebrating the lifestyle of a life long renter.

 

[BMBiology]

Someone will still have to buy your stocks !

Again, the top 10% owns most of the stocks in this country so why do I care that your average joe can't buy them? As a matter of fact:

"But new data from Pew Research suggests that more than half (53 percent) of Americans have absolutely no money in the stock market, including retirement accounts."

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/how-many-americans-even-own-stocks.html/?a=viewall#ixzz3JGNPMG1g

 

[BMBiology]

(1) you can't put money in retirement funds (i.e., 401 k, roth ira) and therefore, you would forgo all the money from company matches. Have you calculated how much that would cost you? All the tax breaks, company matches...gone!

Oh and don't forget your social security!

"At a Senate Committee hearing this week, the Government Accountability Office, a research arm of the Congress, reported that 155,000 people last year had their Social Security checks docked to pay off a delinquent student loan."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonde...id-student-loans-what-the-feds-wont-tell-you/

 

[TheTao]

BMB why don't you just admit it, you think "Dr" level education should only be for upper middle class/wealthy people.

 

[TheTao]

I blame on the easy access of student loan as the source of the problem. Some people are just greedy. There is nothing you can do that would change their nature. Does it make it right? Of course not but if you limit student loans, you would also limit their greed. It is that simple.

So student loan borrowers are greedy? And the wealthy are altruistic providers for the %99?

IGNORE function, STAT!!!!

 

[type b pharmD]

So student loan borrowers are greedy? And the wealthy are altruistic providers for the %99?

IGNORE function, STAT!!!!

Hey now he did reintroduce us to white snow .. which the glory of that is worth at least 100 bad posts .. so let's hope he wastes them all on this one thread.

 

[BMBiology]

BMB why don't you just admit it, you think "Dr" level education should only be for upper middle class/wealthy people.

First, don't tie financial needs to level of education. It worked just fine before the student loan bubble. There are plenty of opportunities for you to exceed regardless of your financial background. If you come from a disadvantage family, you just need to work harder than everybody else. That's just life. I didn't have a problem with it and you shouldn't as well. Again, the vast majority of millionaires in this country are self-made.

"Dr" level education should be limited to those who have shown academic excellent, strong work ethics....pretty much the best of the best. Why should someone who can't even get a 3.0 GPA be given a "Dr" education? What is the point of giving them a "Dr" education and burden them with student loans when there's no job for them?

 

[PharmDCandidate2014]

First, don't tie financial needs to level of education. It worked just fine before the student loan bubble. There are plenty of opportunities for you to exceed regardless of your financial background. If you come from a disadvantage family, you just need to work harder than everybody else. That's just life. I didn't have a problem with it and you shouldn't as well. Again, the vast majority of millionaires in this country are self-made.

"Dr" level education should be limited to those who have shown academic excellent, strong work ethics....pretty much the best of the best. Why should someone who can't even get a 3.0 GPA be given a "Dr" education? What is the point of giving them a "Dr" education and burden them with student loans when there's no job for them?

When did you ever imply that a doctorate education should ONLY be reserved for the upper (upper-middle) class? Am I missing something?

 

[BMBiology]

When did you ever imply that a doctorate education should ONLY be reserved for the upper (upper-middle) class? Am I missing something?

apparently, setting high standards for doctorate education = reserve for upper class.

 

[confettiflyer]

When you signed your student loans, it said nothing about loan forgiveness. As a matter of fact, many people had borrowed student loans way before these forgiveness programs.
.

PSLF is written into my MPN...but the operative word was "may" be discharged, a distinction lost to many people.

 

[BMBiology]

The problem with your plan (declared insolvency so you don't have to pay taxes on the forgiven amount):

(1) you can't put money in retirement funds (i.e., 401 k, roth ira) and therefore, you would forgo all the money from company matches. Have you calculated how much that would cost you? All the tax breaks, company matches...gone!

(2) in addition to your income, you will be paying the government 15% of your non salary income for the next 20-25 years. You made a few thousands from your company stocks? Got to give some to the government. You made some money from renting out your house? Have to give the government a cut. Got a side job? The government wants a cut, too.

So seriously, how is this a smart idea?

Still waiting for your reply as to how your plan is financially smart?

 

[type b pharmD]

Still waiting for your reply as to how your plan is financially smart?

Unlike some, I know how to quit when I'm ahead. I already wrote all that in excruciating detail when we originally debated it

 

[BMBiology]

Unlike some, I know how to quit when I'm ahead. I already wrote all that in excruciating detail when we originally debated it

I point this out because I don't want others to be foolish enough to believe there is a loophole.

Avoiding putting money in retirement funds and forgoing social security is stupid. And for what? So you can max out your student loans and spend the money on other things? But then again you are planning to leave the country anyways. Turn in your visa and we will call it even.

 

[BMBiology]

and by the way, if you refused to pay your student loan, your professional license may be suspended. This may affect your ability to get licensed in another country.

 

[Dr Wario]

BMB, be angry at the system, not the people who use it. This kind of crap should never have been put into place. Sadly though, it has and it makes everyone suffer with higher tuition and taxes.

 

[PharmaSex]

For what is it worth, I found value in both arguments but from what I know and have read about the economy, I do think type B has the better argument and defended his points a lot better. What do I know? I read a lot articles from Forbes, NYTimes, and several other business and finance magazines so I have a pretty good understanding of the way things work.

 

[type b pharmD]

For what is it worth, I found value in both arguments but from what I know and have read about the economy, I do think type B has the better argument and defended his points a lot better. What do I know? I read a lot articles from Forbes, NYTimes, and several other business and finance magazines so I have a pretty good understanding of the way things work.

Thank you.

I think there is a lot of merit to the argument that ibr and paye are completely insane and distort the market and lead to a lot of waste ... I just acknowledge though that the bubble blowing MUST continue to keep the game going and maintain the illusion of mobility and opportunity in today's world. With wealth inequality being so high, we at least need the image of an escalator in order to keep participation rate stable. With housing clearly not performing this role, IBR is the one thing keeping millennials from throwing in the towel ... The truth nobody wants anyone to know is that without market participation (ie suckers, buyers, whatever you want to call it) , there is no market, and with no market, wealth is completely meaningless. I think I am in a pretty good position to talk about how student debt affects my generation. Because I have 375k in loans. Without ibr I would not be participating in RE or stocks , in fact I would not even be participating in the US economy.. that happens to be by choice since I have the fortunate ability to move, but the average person in the US has only one choice, take ibr and participate in economy, or basically sink into poverty and abandon all markets except the bread lines. Sad truth.

I think govt should both pay in full for higher ed like they should offer 100% paid healthcare for all .. and set price controls ... But in the "capitalist" system, these two commodities must be distributed to the people through convoluted market games. We know that govt directed market games come with waste and loss/abuse. Well, I will take it while I can get it, which is the mindset of a capitalist opportunist -- if you aren't one, sad to say you probably won't accumulate wealth here.

 

[deleted390966]

.

 

[type b pharmD]

But with income higher than 80k/year, don't you end up paying much much more than you owe under IBR or PAYE?
https://studentloans.gov/myDirectLoan/mobile/repayment/repaymentEstimator.action

Looking at PAYE.. overall payoff amount is about half that of traditional. At least on a 2 person family w 150k income and 375k in loans. It is important to choose the correct deflator or discount rate as well as an accurate income growth rate.

 

[Trent Steele]

everytime i log in here after a while I see the OP bashing on IBR... guy really has a hardon for being against this program for some reason. It seems like a good option for someone with high debt. If pharmacist pays makes 100k per year, theyll be paying at least $1000 a month anyways, which would likely pay off the original principle balance after 10-20 years of payment anyways.

I think this is a great program for professionals; the borrower will pay back the principle over time and not much more. The govt doesnt need to be ripping huge profits off of student loan debt. I read that the student loan program was second only to Exxon/Mobil in terms of profit. That is totally wrong.

 

[BMBiology]

Lets be clear here. I am not against IBR/PAYE. I am against abuse like what Goergetown Law School is doing as mentioned in the article and like this:

I will ultimately end up paying what I consider a fair market value for a PharmD , somewhere around $100-150k . The opportunities I had to invest and start small business during school (offshore) , taught me that finances particularly with regard to US govt, are not always what they seem. For example, while US Gov will ultimately pay $700k for my PharmD . I will pay around 150k. The opportunity to get student loans to sit around and not attend class allowed me to invest in my retirement already through small business, which, starting a steady compounding interest stream at age 25, was financially worth the trade-off of acquiring the student debt, and was a no brainer decision since it dovetails nicely with pre-existing plans to retire abroad.

Just a small piece of a bigger picture.

The on paper debt is a farce, which, I would hope anyone who has participated in higher ed scam would realize

Obviously some people won't be able to pay off their student loans in 10 years. They need to pay it off over a 20-25 year period and that's OK. In return, they would be paying more interest and therefore, it would cost them more money since they would have to pay income tax on any amount that is "forgiven" after 20-25 years ("tax bomb").

 

[Trent Steele]

Lets be clear here. I am not against IBR/PAYE. I am against abuse like what Goergetown Law School is doing as mentioned in the article and like this:

Obviously some people won't be able to pay off their student loans in 10 years. They need to pay it off over a 20-25 year period and that's OK. In return, they would be paying more interest and therefore, it would cost them more money since they would have to pay income tax on any amount that is "forgiven" after 20-25 years ("tax bomb").

Right, and I don't see how having the forgiven amount on loan is a big deal for anyone against this program.
The problem is with the school's tuitions, not the IBR program really. That being said, I think the IBR program would be perfectly sound if it were RESTRICTED to professional level degrees. Pharmacist on a 10 year PSLF forgiveness plan will certainly pay the principal back.The principle value of the loan will never decrease when using IBR because the payments arent big enough to make a dent. However the principle will be paid back if someone has a six figure salary as the payments are a percentage of your income. I think this program is only worth it if PSLF is used, otherwise IBR is pretty worthless if you have to pay for 20 years and then get a tax bomb at the end. It really does nothing in that case.

However, art history major at northwestern that accrues 200k for a bachelors..... yes I can see that as a problem but IBR wont really help them in the long run anyways seeing as their principle will inflate to a riduclous amount anyways and the tax bill at the end will likeley be the original loan amount. All it does for non public sector employess is kick the can down the road. If anything should be changed its how IBR is given out and who qualifies. Repealing the whole thing is insane.

Student loan debt is a major crisis in my opinion now for this generation. It's not like summer jobs can pay a whole year of tuition anymore. Why not give the millenials as many options as possible? Just because you think they should know better than taking out a huge loan? A lot of these borrowers are coming from lower working class backgrounds where nobody in their family went to college to offer advice on higher education finance. For you to think they should simply know better is ignorant. These kids see the possibility to get a six figure income in a legitimate manner and become productive members of society, and these income based loans make it possible for them to do that. They shouldnt have to be slaves to debt and not able to stimulate the economy their entire life for making something of themselves. With PSLF everybody wins IMO.

 

[BMBiology]

You don't seem to get that programs like loan forgiveness and easy access to student loans are the cause of high tuition.

Don't think people who are from low income families are mainly benefiting from loan forgiveness either.

 

[Sparda29]

If not for IBR, I'd be paying somewhere between $2000-3000/month. If it weren't for free rent, I'd have to live in a place with under 1k rent.

 

[Digsbe]

The government is going to make their money back from grad students. I know some med students that have to borrow 70k+ per year for their school and living expenses. Some pharm schools have an average student debt of around 200k when you factor in living costs too. High debt doesn't always correlate with irresponsible borrowing, graduate education itself just costs a ton of money with no more financial aid like PELL Grants, state scholarships and other things typically offered to u-grads. When I was in u-grad I got my PELL Grant, something called a SMART grant for PELL recipients in science majors (they ended that), my state scholarhsip and a nice academic scholarship that only resulted in me borrowing about 20k for 4 years of private school u-grad education. In my first year of pharm school I took out more in debt than 4 years of u-grad because it all needed to be financed and scholarships/aid are rare.

Those who have grad degrees typically make more money. Pharmacists may make 100-150k a year or so, physicians have a wide range of salaries based on specialty, lawyers can make it big (but it seems that largely depends on your school) and most other graduate professional programs result in higher salaries than the average. The government will make more on your income taxes, they will make money on your loans with interest attached to it. Throughout the lifetime of your earning, IBR or not, the government is more than likely going to make more off of you than someone else who didn't borrow so much in loans. If it's about the government "losing money" in that the loans are costing them when it comes to graduate programs I'm not so sure they can rationally claim that.

 

[BMBiology]

Easy access to student loans/loan forgiveness >>

more schools open >>

tuition goes up but students don't care because they figure they would pay the same >>

more graduates >>

harder time to find a job/salary stagnant >>

graduates have a harder time paying off their loans/pay less due to underemployment or unemployment >>

government losses money >>

taxes go up

Sounds like the current state of the profession!

 

[Trent Steele]

Easy access to student loans/loan forgiveness >>

more schools open >>

tuition goes up but students don't care because they figure they would pay the same >>

more graduates >>

harder time to find a job/salary stagnant >>

graduates have a harder time paying off their loans/pay less due to underemployment or unemployment >>

government losses money >>

taxes go up

Sounds like the current state of the profession!

You think that IBR is the main factor causing all these issues? That's funny since only 7% of borrowers are now using IBR and only a fraction of those 7% of borrowers are able to qualify for PSLF. Borrowers are getting the loans regardless, and 93% do not use IBR. If you are attributing IBR or especially PSLF to the school explosion, tax hikes, stagnant salaries and tuition hikes, you are delusional sir.

Source: https://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/student/portfolio

/thread

 

[BMBiology]

^ what % of new pharmacy grads that are on IBR/PAYE/PSLF? Look it up and get back to us.

Of course it is not the only cause of the exponential growth of pharmacy schools. Easy access to unlimited gradplus loan is another cause.

Think about it. If you believe you will pay $X for the next 10-20 years, why would you care what is the cost? You would be paying the same thing. So cost, whether it is $10 k or $100 k, is not longer a factor.

Just follow the money. It is that simple.

 

[OmiPharmD]

^ what % of new pharmacy grads that are on IBR/PAYE/PSLF? Look it up and get back to us.

Of course it is not the only cause of the exponential growth of pharmacy schools. Easy access to unlimited gradplus loan is another cause.

Think about it. If you believe you will pay $X for the next 10-20 years, why would you care what is the cost? You would be paying the same thing. So cost, whether it is $10 k or $100 k, is not longer a factor.

Just follow the money. It is that simple.

The new grads we have hired in the past 5 or so years have each graduated with around $200,000 in student loans. Insane! A couple had closer to $150,000 which still sucks. They sign up for PSLF as soon as they can get the paperwork done. One of our residents was showing up what his standard 10 year repayment would be before signing up for PSLF and it was over $2000 a month.

Pharmacy school tuition is ridiculous. We keep dropping our starting salary but still have a pile of applications. This is good for none of us.

 

[BMBiology]

^^ it is like a cycle:

easy access to student loans and IBR/PAYE/PSLF >>

tuition goes up >>

new grads have more loan so they seek out public or non profit jobs >>

salary goes down because there is such a demand for these jobs >>

government gets less money since repayment is income based

I can understand if these jobs are in desperate need for pharmacists like Indian health services (IHS). I am talking about public and non profit organizations like university hospitals, Kaiser, VA...these places never had a problem with recruiting pharmacists.

How is this a good thing?

 

[Baller MD]

The new grads we have hired in the past 5 or so years have each graduated with around $200,000 in student loans. Insane! A couple had closer to $150,000 which still sucks. They sign up for PSLF as soon as they can get the paperwork done. One of our residents was showing up what his standard 10 year repayment would be before signing up for PSLF and it was over $2000 a month.

Pharmacy school tuition is ridiculous. We keep dropping our starting salary but still have a pile of applications. This is good for none of us.

This guy said it folks.

 

[Gombrich12]

"art history major at northwestern that accrues 200k for a bachelors..... yes I can see that as a problem"

That's not possible because undergraduates are limited to $57k in federal loans. IBR/PAYE was not designed with professional school in mind, that's why it will be changed. After all why should a pharmacist who works at a "non-profit" hospital get their loans forgiven tax free after 10 years while the one working in a for profit operation doesn't? The idea behind PSLF was to get bright undergraduates into fed/state gov jobs that are typically low paying and unglamorous.