Student Loan Forgiveness

[WisNeuro]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/business/student-loan-forgiveness-program-lawsuit.html?_r=1

Things like this are why most of us are strongly against doctoral programs that charge sky high tuition and try to sell you on the promise that you can always get loan forgiveness due to your MD level debt on a PhD salary.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pragma]

The rules for PSLF were always flimsy for people that don't have clear-cut government positions. I always have wondered how Fedloan would manage some of the "non-profit" cases.

This will be an interesting year as the first set of folks on PSLF are supposed to cash in.

 

[ForeverJung]

I could be completely wrong, but from what I've read, it's largely members of non-profit trade associations that have been running up against the DOE claiming their approvals were non-binding. Most articles cite lawyers who worked for organizations like the American Bar Association.

The "grey" area is that they aren't exactly 501(c)(3) non-profits. Granted, they were still at one point approved, so I understand their anger. It still makes me feel a little better in our field since it sounds like organizations that most of us would work for (government positions (VAs, for example) or 501(c)(3)s) would be less in that "grey" area and more likely to have the forgiveness honored. I'd be very interested to hear from any psychologists that will hit the 10-year mark this fall and if they're receiving any pushback. I've mostly only read about lawyers getting screwed. As someone close to graduating, it would be a huge factor in the direction I go.

 

[StellaB]

I completely agree with WisNeuro that it's not a secure bet to try and pay off loans through these types of programs. I sincerely hope this program stays around and is functional, but I also sincerely doubt congress was realistic about how expensive this was going to be.

 

[asian pharm]

I have a question about trump's student loan policy. I was going to start a new thread but found this one so continued posting on this one.
I m currently on the IBR plan with 10% of my discretionary income going towards student loan for 20 years, and rest to be forgiven. Now, trump has said that he is going to consolidate all the options out there (IBR,PAYE,ICR etc) to one where borrowers have to pay 12.5% of their discretionary income and the rest of the debt will be forgiven after 15 years. Now, here are my questions:

1) Did the above policy (12.5% of your income for 15 years, rest of the debt forgiven) already come into effect? If so, my loan servicer has not said anything about this!

2) What is the clause on the debt being forgiven? (is it going to be taxable? if so at what rate)

3) If I m on IBR and making regular payments and my loan is in good standing, then is that going to effect the amount I can borrow for buying my first home? I have 160K in student loans, all pharmacy school's debt......I did not had any undergrad loans.

Thank you all....Any feedback is appreciated.

 

[deleted343839]

I have a question about trump's student loan policy.

What policy? I think you're jumping ahead of yourself.

 

[WisNeuro]

What policy? I think you're jumping ahead of yourself.

Hey, in the current administration, a 140 character tweet counts as comprehensive policy.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm frustrated with there being so little talk about the proposed tax policy and the effects it will have on graduate student earning (and subsequently, the amount of loans needed to graduate for many). I need to dig into this to read what fine print I can find, but as I understand it tuition remission will count as part of taxable income, reducing the take home even more. Just like with ACA, I worry that graduate students will get forgotten about here.

 

[Shiriyama]

Since Trump's election I've had to change my plans as well. While no policy has been passed yet, putting one's hopes onto PSLF requires a belief that the PSLF program will exist ten years after they enroll in it. I was building my path towards working in the VA system on the thought that such work would definitely count for PSLF. However, I honestly believe that his administration will axe PSLF if they can, making the VA path pointless compared to other paths. I can still aim for VAs later on, but it just seems like a risky bet at this point.

 

[Pragma]

Since Trump's election I've had to change my plans as well. While no policy has been passed yet, putting one's hopes onto PSLF requires a belief that the PSLF program will exist ten years after they enroll in it. I was building my path towards working in the VA system on the thought that such work would definitely count for PSLF. However, I honestly believe that his administration will axe PSLF if they can, making the VA path pointless compared to other paths. I can still aim for VAs later on, but it just seems like a risky bet at this point.

PSLF has been on the chopping block for a long time. Even under Obama, his budget proposal was to cap any benefit to about 57K total, which would also make forgiveness pointless for anyone borrowing a more substantial amount of money.

FWIW, the program doesn't appear to be financially sustainable in the long term unless some major modifications are made for qualifying for the program. it will be interesting to see what amount of money is forgiven in these first few years of people cashing in on the program.

 

[WisNeuro]

PSLF has been on the chopping block for a long time. Even under Obama, his budget proposal was to cap any benefit to about 57K total, which would also make forgiveness pointless for anyone borrowing a more substantial amount of money.

FWIW, the program doesn't appear to be financially sustainable in the long term unless some major modifications are made for qualifying for the program. it will be interesting to see what amount of money is forgiven in these first few years of people cashing in on the program.

I'd actually be in favor of a cap on forgiveness. although it may have to be coupled with limiting the amount of loans someone can take out in the first place. If you cut off the seemingly unlimited funds to the diploma mills, maybe they'll actually stop proliferating.

 

[Shiriyama]

PSLF has been on the chopping block for a long time. Even under Obama, his budget proposal was to cap any benefit to about 57K total, which would also make forgiveness pointless for anyone borrowing a more substantial amount of money.

FWIW, the program doesn't appear to be financially sustainable in the long term unless some major modifications are made for qualifying for the program. it will be interesting to see what amount of money is forgiven in these first few years of people cashing in on the program.

I realized that, but I figured that it would have been a slower death without the financial conservatism that is currently at play. Overall it's quite frustrating because it makes most PsyD programs nigh financially ruinous--graduating with 100k+ in debt while many job prospects don't seem to have pay commensurate with the qualifications we end up having. I'm at the Rutgers PsyD program, one of the cheaper PsyDs, and between tuition and cost of living I'm already in a crapload of debt. Not only did I not really qualify for PhD programs given my lack of research/publications/what have you (and so I couldn't get a fully funded degree), I wasn't really as interested in those when compared to what I thought I would get out of a high quality PsyD program.

In regards to PSLF not being financially sustainable, I agree it definitely looked like that from the inception, meaning it wouldn't stick around forever. That wasn't going to stop me from trying to cash in on it while it worked.

I'd actually be in favor of a cap on forgiveness. although it may have to be coupled with limiting the amount of loans someone can take out in the first place. If you cut off the seemingly unlimited funds to the diploma mills, maybe they'll actually stop proliferating.

Honestly, I understand and can agree with financial/fiscal conservatism in some way. I'm not against a cap on forgiveness. After all, the seemingly limitless loans entice diploma mills and more to raise their tuition because they're still going to get their money in the end. But if there is a cap on forgiveness, what do we do about the fact that even good programs are extremely expensive? A cap on forgiveness without a commensurate cap on tuition would make entering the field prohibitively expensive and certainly stymie the APA's efforts to try to enhance their diversity.

What are your thoughts? Fun discussion!

 

[psych.meout]

I realized that, but I figured that it would have been a slower death without the financial conservatism that is currently at play. Overall it's quite frustrating because it makes most PsyD programs nigh financially ruinous--graduating with 100k+ in debt while many job prospects don't seem to have pay commensurate with the qualifications we end up having. I'm at the Rutgers PsyD program, one of the cheaper PsyDs, and between tuition and cost of living I'm already in a crapload of debt. Not only did I not really qualify for PhD programs given my lack of research/publications/what have you (and so I couldn't get a fully funded degree), I wasn't really as interested in those when compared to what I thought I would get out of a high quality PsyD program.

But why should the rest of the taxpayers pay for your immediate gratification? Why is it that you and other people who go to unfunded programs deserve to go to grad school on the backs of everyone else? Why is it that everyone else should have to pay, because you couldn't be bothered to get the requisite experience and skills to qualify you for a fully funded program?

In regards to PSLF not being financially sustainable, I agree it definitely looked like that from the inception, meaning it wouldn't stick around forever. That wasn't going to stop me from trying to cash in on it while it worked.

So, you're admitting this is about you "cashing in." That really makes your argument all the sounder and more sympathetic.

Honestly, I understand and can agree with financial/fiscal conservatism in some way. I'm not against a cap on forgiveness. After all, the seemingly limitless loans entice diploma mills and more to raise their tuition because they're still going to get their money in the end. But if there is a cap on forgiveness, what do we do about the fact that even good programs are extremely expensive? A cap on forgiveness without a commensurate cap on tuition would make entering the field prohibitively expensive and certainly stymie the APA's efforts to try to enhance their diversity.

What are your thoughts? Fun discussion!

Make those programs change? Why is it that so many programs provide full tuition remission and health insurance coverage and stipends, yet some of these other supposedly "good" programs can't do any of that? Maybe there's something about those supposedly "good" programs that needs to change and maybe limiting the supply of loan forgiveness would put pressure on them to change? Those programs are free riders on the taxpayer, while all the other actually good programs find ways to make their programs essentially free.

 

[WisNeuro]

Honestly, I understand and can agree with financial/fiscal conservatism in some way. I'm not against a cap on forgiveness. After all, the seemingly limitless loans entice diploma mills and more to raise their tuition because they're still going to get their money in the end. But if there is a cap on forgiveness, what do we do about the fact that even good programs are extremely expensive? A cap on forgiveness without a commensurate cap on tuition would make entering the field prohibitively expensive and certainly stymie the APA's efforts to try to enhance their diversity.

What are your thoughts? Fun discussion!

This is simply not true. There are plenty of fully funded programs that actively court diverse applicants. Furthermore, there is no psychologist shortage. In fact, in many metro areas, there is a large over supply. Simple supply and demand, we are over producing more supply than there is demand. Guess what happens when that is the case? Same thing is happening in other fields, like pharmacy. It's a good way to drive down everyone's training rigor and future salary.

 

[psych.meout]

This is simply not true. There are plenty of fully funded programs that actively court diverse applicants. Furthermore, there is no psychologist shortage. In fact, in many metro areas, there is a large over supply. Simple supply and demand, we are over producing more supply than there is demand. Guess what happens when that is the case? Same thing is happening in other fields, like pharmacy. It's a good way to drive down everyone's training rigor and future salary.

But...if people can't go into incredible debt only for the taxpayers to foot the bill, how can there be diversity in clinical psychology? It's not like programs could actively court underrepresented groups with additional personal statements about diversity......

 

[Central_Perk]

Have people seen the proposed changes to grad funding in the House tax bill? It gets rid of the Lifetime Learning credit and the Student Loan Interest deduction in addition to making tuition remission taxable income. So, under the plan, if you're a student at a private university who gets a $25,000 stipend and $30,000 in tuition remission per year, you get taxed at the rate of someone making and taking home $55,000 (even though you obviously never see the 30K and it goes straight to the school). The forum won't let me post a link but I've seen the story carried by several outlets.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Have people seen the proposed changes to grad funding in the House tax bill? It gets rid of the Lifetime Learning credit and the Student Loan Interest deduction in addition to making tuition remission taxable income. So, under the plan, if you're a student at a private university who gets a $25,000 stipend and $30,000 in tuition remission per year, you get taxed at the rate of someone making and taking home $55,000 (even though you obviously never see the 30K and it goes straight to the school). The forum won't let me post a link but I've seen the story carried by several outlets.

I mentioned it a few posts above but its not getting as much discussion. I assume because there isn't as much to discuss except "I didn't know my eyes can roll that far back into my head, did you?". I was pretty surprised to see APAGS and the student organizations not making huge statements about this and how it impacts training. It may honestly be a better topic for a separate thread

But...if people can't go into incredible debt only for the taxpayers to foot the bill, how can there be diversity in clinical psychology? It's not like programs could actively court underrepresented groups with additional personal statements about diversity......

I don't disagree with you, but I think that diversity would need to be considered more broadly than it frequently is in order to capture the whole swath of underrepresented groups that we want to ensure have an opportunity to attend graduate training.

 

[mlwg1]

I would say that high-tuition student loans actually exploit underrepresented groups. Statistically many such groups are already less economically well-off on average. Huge debt burdens only serve to widen the gap.

 

[foreverbull]

Even state-funded programs/public universities and Ph.D. programs graduate students with debt depending on cost of living, not all tuition being covered, and other considerations. It isn't as simple as regulating "diploma mills"; I think there are always more factors at play. I would argue it's a mix of both personal choice and external factors rather than be tempted to reduce things to black-and-white.

 

[WisNeuro]

The vast majority of PhD students will graduate with sub six figure debt. More than half with <60k. And that's debt associated with all schooling. Almost a third of people report 0 debt attributable to graduate school. It's not as simple as regulating diploma mills, no quotes needed, but it would go a hell of a long way given the reality of the situation. The Triple AAA predatory programs thrive due to a seemingly unending supply of federal loan dollars and student who don't know any better. I doubt we'll be able to change the gullibility of people, but we can hold organizations accountable for their implied outcomes.

 

[foreverbull]

It's not as simple as regulating diploma mills, no quotes needed, but it would go a hell of a long way given the reality of the situation. The Triple AAA predatory programs thrive due to a seemingly unending supply of federal loan dollars and student who don't know any better. I doubt we'll be able to change the gullibility of people, but we can hold organizations accountable for their implied outcomes.

Agreed; that is one of the systemic factors, and we should absolutely hold these institutions accountable.

 

[PsyDr]

1) Insider scoop: large public universities are advised to determine the maximum amount of student loans a student can get, divide that by mean credit hour, and make that the new tuition goal. They are paying finance guys large sums of money for this.

2) The fed doesn't see student loan debt as a burden. It's VERY positive thing for them/us. It creates an above market rate source of interest income, the proceeds of which can be loaned out as T-bills to stabilize inflation, while transferring the "actual unemployment" numbers to employment numbers to stabilize macroeco stuff. Trying to get the government to limit school tuition or whatever is like a mortgage lender trying to talk someone out of buying a house.

 

[Shiriyama]

So, you're admitting this is about you "cashing in." That really makes your argument all the sounder and more sympathetic.

Ouch. Fair points. Just...I never did imply it makes my argument any more sound. Does it make it more sympathetic? Certainly not. I just honestly think it would've been irrational to not make use of the program while it existed. It's selfish...but reasonable.

But why should the rest of the taxpayers pay for your immediate gratification? Why is it that you and other people who go to unfunded programs deserve to go to grad school on the backs of everyone else? Why is it that everyone else should have to pay, because you couldn't be bothered to get the requisite experience and skills to qualify you for a fully funded program?

Whoa, wait a second. I'm sorry. I'll admit I'm naive in certain respects and that I came off like an entitled ass. To me it isn't about immediate gratification, it's about not being saddled with 150k in debt when the salary for jobs I can look forward to don't seem to allow for living above the bare minimum. I don't want to go to grad school on the backs of everyone else, I'd just like to be able to, well, live. I dislike the idea of shunting the cost onto others. The thing is, doesn't your line of thinking end with the idea that most PsyD programs are financially unfeasible? As far as I know, most PsyD programs are unfunded, even the really good ones that aren't diploma mills--please correct me if I'm wrong. No sarcasm, I'd like to be operating on verifiable facts regarding this situation (better than the ones I currently have). However, you're making a few highly unfair assumptions regarding both me and my program. First, you don't know what factors might have limited my ability to get the experience needed to qualify for a fully funded program; I come from a background of extreme poverty, both of my parents were drug users, and I was unable to escape that situation before my high school grades suffered. The colleges I went to (and could get into) offered *no* possibilities of me doing research. Working after my BA was a matter of survival and I was lucky enough to land a master's level job with a huge clinical component (psychiatric emergency room screening) but had absolutely no research component. It's not that I "couldn't be bothered" to get the requisite skills and experience. I did the best I could despite some pretty significant hardships. And my current program is rated as one of the top two PsyD programs in the US. So, is the clinical PsyD program at the Rutgers Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology a diploma mill? I chose this program because of the wonderful faculty it has as well as the great clinical experiences one could get through it...as well as its reputation and the fact that it offered some funding and ended up being one of the cheapest PsyD programs. Far as I know, only Baylor would have been better.

All of this is beside the point. I posted a sob story. I posted it because it was true. Does that mean everyone else should have to pay for my education? Absolutely not. I simply wanted to explain personal contextual factors that limited my ability to seek and obtain the experiences you mentioned because you erroneously attributed my situation to either intent or traits. So, if I can ask for your help, please help me understand your argument and line of reasoning better.

Make those programs change? Why is it that so many programs provide full tuition remission and health insurance coverage and stipends, yet some of these other supposedly "good" programs can't do any of that? Maybe there's something about those supposedly "good" programs that needs to change and maybe limiting the supply of loan forgiveness would put pressure on them to change? Those programs are free riders on the taxpayer, while all the other actually good programs find ways to make their programs essentially free.

Making those programs change is why I said I wish that the tuition would be lowered to a more feasible range. However, I have to repeat an earlier question: are you saying my program isn't "actually good"? It would be interesting to find out that I was duped regarding GSAPP being one of the best and I'd honestly rather go forward knowing the truth. What PsyD programs provide full tuition remission, health insurance, and stipends? I don't know of any PsyD program that does what you mention other than Baylor, and I did a lot of research into the matter because I wanted to avoid taking out a ton of loans. I also aimed for a PsyD because I wanted more clinical training than research training in addition to knowing I wouldn't really qualify for PhD programs. I agree that limiting loan forgiveness could put pressure for change--I definitely get that no program would have any incentive to make their tuition reasonable if the exorbitant loans they have students take out could all easily be forgiven. However, your argument here has a hole insofar as PSLF hasn't forgiven anyone's debt as far as I've read (and I keep up to date on this).

 

[foreverbull]

Just to comment on your concerns, I grew up around the poverty line, attended a reputable Ph.D. program with assistantships every year and in-state tuition and most tuition was covered by the assistantships (not all, more like 65-75%), and still took out loans because I lived in a large metro area and my stipend didn't cover more than rent and a few bills. Everything else was loans (partial tuition, food, car repairs, clothes, entertainment, travel/moving for internship and moving out, textbooks, trainings, etc.). I even spent student loan money to help a parent out financially at a time when she was struggling to make ends meet.
I tried to argue that it wasn't poor fiscal decisions and taking out loans willy-nilly, and was generally met with "you should've chosen a program that covered everything" as if it was a personal choice to not get accepted to other programs.

Generally speaking, when it comes to student loans, in here things tend to be depicted in very black-and-white terms because people feel strongly about it and have a hard time understanding how people can accrue a large amount of debt (even when personal stories are offered). Having said that, just know that not all of us are black-and-white thinkers and that we all don't feel that way.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's all choices. We all know the numbers going into things. Some of us make the choice to sacrifice tie in undergrad and maybe a year off to beef up a CV to get a fully funded program. Some of us choose to live with roommates to cut down on rent and utilities as living expenses. We find side jobs if we can to supplement income. It's not black and white, but there is a lot anyone can do to mitigate this through choices.

 

[Shiriyama]

Generally speaking, when it comes to student loans, in here things tend to be depicted in very black-and-white terms because people feel strongly about it and have a hard time understanding how people can accrue a large amount of debt (even when personal stories are offered). Having said that, just know that not all of us are black-and-white thinkers and that we all don't feel that way.

Thank you for helping me understand more. I realize I'm guilty of that black and white thinking you mentioned regarding the cost of attending PhD programs. Sorry about that. It's good to know more.

It's all choices. We all know the numbers going into things. Some of us make the choice to sacrifice tie in undergrad and maybe a year off to beef up a CV to get a fully funded program. Some of us choose to live with roommates to cut down on rent and utilities as living expenses. We find side jobs if we can to supplement income. It's not black and white, but there is a lot anyone can do to mitigate this through choices.

Indeed it is all choices. But I have to ask a question to clarify possible black and white thinking: when people mention "fully funded program," is that just another way of saying "PhD program?" I could only find evidence of one fully funded PsyD program. One of my choices was informed by a desire to go to a high quality PsyD program because I was far more interested in clinical training. I couldn't spend more time in undergrad--I had bills to pay and needed to be able to work full time. I took time off postbac and applied to many research positions in the NYC area for quite a while. Every position was given to someone with a master's degree, and after so long I had to focus on finding work so I could live (meaning I definitely could not afford to volunteer). Psychiatric emergency screening was a great job that has given me amazing clinical breadth, detailed crisis/suicide prevention training and knowledge of psychiatry but consumed all of my time between the shift being a 3p-11p shift, the commute being two hours each way, and working six days a week (meaning there wasn't time to volunteer on the side. I tried.). Roommates? Check. Side job? Check, I still work per diem at the psychiatric ER, as part and full time was impossible given the time investment of early grad school. I even had a nice nest egg saved from my time working in order to help pay my tuition/bills/what have you. I'm still in far too much debt. And given the contextual factors of my life there was no feasible way to get the experience necessary to get into a PhD program.

There is a lot we can do via our choices to mitigate debt. But why are you entirely focused on back end solutions that have students finding ways to adapt to the system? Adaptation is wonderful and it must be done to survive, but given that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, it also facilitates the status quo in a system that appears predatory at worst and problematic at best. I'm still going to argue for the front end solution that the tuition at quality programs (PhD and PsyD) needs to be tweaked by sheer merit of the fact that tuition in colleges across the US need to be tweaked. One counterargument you made is that there is no shortage of psychologists--then why am I hearing from Terry Wilson that CBT types are doing everything they can to improve dissemination and implementation, going so far as to have us training the trainers to the point of training LCSWs to deliver EBTs, because there aren't enough psychologists to deliver treatments to those in need of them? Is that just advertising from CBT types to make it seem like it's desperately needed? Anyways, the administrative bloat and other financial leaks endemic to colleges serve to make tuition staggering. The data indicating huge increases in tuition prices over the past two decades illustrates this point a bit (in trying to poke holes in my own argument to look for nuance, I'll guess that the increases in tuition and staff were correlated with the increases in college attendance in that same time period. But I'll argue that the staffing and tuition increases aren't commensurate with the actual costs of those levels of college attendance, not to mention the possibility that college tuition increases were so high due to financial aid and undergrad loans acting in much the same way psych.meout posited regarding grad loans). I'm not arguing that diploma mills ought to be made more affordable. But given my N=1 anecdotal experience of a program that is not a diploma mill, I think change is in order for programs as opposed to students shouldering 100% of the burden by scrambling to adapt or PSLF shunting the overinflated costs onto taxpayers.

 

[WisNeuro]

There are indeed fully funded PsyDs, so that isn't an excuse. And yes, there is no shortage of psychologists. I don't know what Terry is talking about, but I have never seen this shortage of psychologists. What I have seen in the multiple states that I have trained and worked in, is that when we post a job for a psychologist of any type, we get dozens of applications. I have honestly never seen a position for a psychologist that has been hard to fill. So, I call bs on that claim. There are shortages in rural areas, but that's true for every healthcare specialty and not due to a lack of supply, rather a lack of people wanting to live there. So, I call bs on the shortage misconception.

 

[Pragma]

"More interested in clinical training" would lead someone to PhD program by the APPIC numbers. One other misconception to call out.

 

[CatsFan]

It's all choices. We all know the numbers going into things. Some of us make the choice to sacrifice tie in undergrad and maybe a year off to beef up a CV to get a fully funded program. Some of us choose to live with roommates to cut down on rent and utilities as living expenses. We find side jobs if we can to supplement income. It's not black and white, but there is a lot anyone can do to mitigate this through choices.

It does come down to choices, but even at fully funded programs, students from lower income backgrounds may end up with more student loan debt. One reason being that these students may have more limited choices in the case of an emergency without family support to fall back on. You may be able to get by month to month on your stipend and side jobs, but what if your car breaks down, or you need expensive dental work, etc? If you know your family can't help, you may end up taking out more in student loans to cover things like that.

 

[WisNeuro]

It does come down to choices, but even at fully funded programs, students from lower income backgrounds may end up with more student loan debt. One reason being that these students may have more limited choices in the case of an emergency without family support to fall back on. You may be able to get by month to month on your stipend and side jobs, but what if your car breaks down, or you need expensive dental work, etc? If you know your family can't help, you may end up taking out more in student loans to cover things like that.

Sure, that's a couple thousand here and there, and these are a small percentage of people who need emergency funds. But this isn't the debt load we're talking about. We're talking about the 6 figure+ debt. These are the choices being discussed. Not whether or not you need to get that root canal or replace the water pump on your car.

 

[psych.meout]

It does come down to choices, but even at fully funded programs, students from lower income backgrounds may end up with more student loan debt. One reason being that these students may have more limited choices in the case of an emergency without family support to fall back on. You may be able to get by month to month on your stipend and side jobs, but what if your car breaks down, or you need expensive dental work, etc? If you know your family can't help, you may end up taking out more in student loans to cover things like that.

We're talking about the $100,000+ debt that is typical of PsyD programs. That kind of debt is not the consequence of not having family wealth to fall back on in times of emergency.

 

[CatsFan]

We're talking about the $100,000+ debt that is typical of PsyD programs. That kind of debt is not the consequence of not having family wealth to fall back on in times of emergency.

This is true. I was just trying to provide a slightly different perspective...and trying to avoid thinking about internship applications and my dissertation